The Supreme Court on Friday pressed the Centre to clarify whether it intended to replicate a “border wall like in America” as part of its strategy to curb illegal immigration, while also flagging the shared linguistic and cultural heritage that binds communities on either side of India’s borders.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi questioned the Union government over its standard operating procedures (SOPs) on deporting migrants, especially to Bangladesh, while hearing a plea by the West Bengal Migrant Welfare Board. The bench also impleaded the Gujarat government as a party in the matter.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, argued that the petition lacked credibility since “no aggrieved parties” were before the court. “This court should not entertain petitions filed by these organisations and associations, which may be supported by some state governments. We know how some state governments thrive on illegal immigrants. Demographic changes have become a serious issue,” Mehta submitted.
Justice Bagchi, however, underlined that those affected may not have the means to reach the top court. He then posed a pointed query to Mehta: “Do you want to build a border wall like in America to prevent illegal immigrants from entering India?” To which Mehta replied, “Certainly not but there are no individual complainants. How can the Union of India reply to the vague allegations made in the petition?”
Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner board, alleged that Bengali-speaking workers were being wrongfully detained as Bangladeshis and, in some cases, “forcefully pushed” across the border. “This has very drastic consequences...sometimes BSF people say you run to the other side or we will shoot you. Similarly, the Border Guard of Bangladesh, also threatens and says if you don't run to the other side, they will shoot,” he said.
He cited the case of a pregnant woman allegedly forced into Bangladesh, whose habeas corpus petition is pending before the Calcutta High Court. He sought interim relief restraining states from deporting migrants until nationality is determined.
Also read: Are Rohingyas refugees or illegal entrants, asks Supreme Court
Justice Bagchi noted a distinction between those attempting to cross illegally and individuals already within Indian territory, stressing that due process must apply in the latter’s case.
The bench further asked the Union to clarify its position on allegations that Bengali-speaking persons were presumed foreigners. Mehta assured the court that “language was not the basis for deportation” and promised to file a comprehensive reply, suggesting the matter be heard alongside the pending Rohingya case.
Justice Kant directed that responses be filed in both matters, while observing that immigration posed a complicated challenge worldwide. The bench agreed with Mehta’s submission that Europe too was grappling with demographic anxieties.
The court also urged the Calcutta High Court to expeditiously take up the habeas petition, clarifying that its own proceedings would not hinder the adjudication.
On August 14, the apex court had declined to pass interim orders on the PIL that challenged the legality of detaining migrant workers under a Ministry of Home Affairs letter dated 2 May 2025, which authorised inter-state verification and detention of suspected illegal immigrants.
Follow us
