The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Union government whether it intended to construct a border wall akin to the United States to prevent the entry of illegal immigrants into India.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi, and Vipul M Pancholi posed the pointed question to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta during a hearing on a petition filed by the West Bengal Migrant Welfare Board, which alleged that Bengali-speaking migrant workers were being detained and pushed into Bangladesh on suspicion of being illegal immigrants.
The court observed that Bengali and Punjabi-speaking people share a cultural and linguistic heritage with neighbouring countries and cautioned against conflating language with nationality. Justice Bagchi remarked, “There are questions of national security, integrity of nation and preservation of resources. But one must also remember the legacy of common heritage, where borders divide people who speak the same language.”
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, alleged that Bengali-speaking persons were being arbitrarily picked up and expelled across the border. He cited the case of a pregnant woman allegedly forced into Bangladesh, whose habeas corpus plea is pending before the Calcutta High Court. He urged the court to direct states not to forcibly deport individuals until their nationality was conclusively determined.
Solicitor General Mehta opposed the maintainability of the petition, arguing that no aggrieved individuals had come before the court. “How can the Union respond to vague allegations? We cannot go by media reports. Agents facilitate illegal entry, and demographic changes have become a serious issue. Some state governments thrive on illegal immigrants,” he submitted.
When asked by Justice Bagchi whether the Centre wanted to replicate the US-style border wall, Mehta clarified: “Certainly not. But there are no individual complainants. Let some person say ‘I am being pushed out.’”
The bench stressed that those affected may not have the resources to approach the Supreme Court directly and said public-spirited individuals could assist them. It asked the Centre to clarify the standard operating procedures (SOPs) for deportation, particularly with respect to Bangladesh, and impleaded the Gujarat government as a party in the matter.
The bench also noted that while illegal entry posed security challenges, individuals already within India’s territory must be dealt with under due process of law. It directed the Centre to file its reply, adding that the issue could be heard along with the pending case on Rohingya refugees.
The court recorded that despite its August 14 order issuing notices to nine states, replies were yet to be filed. It also urged the Calcutta High Court to hear expeditiously the habeas corpus plea concerning the pregnant woman, clarifying that pendency before the apex court would not prevent the high court from adjudicating.
Justice Kant, before adjourning the matter, remarked that the issue was a “complex one” as countries around the world grappled with illegal immigration—some welcoming migrants while others opposed their entry.
