Recent detention drives in several Indian states have put the issue of illegal migration in the spotlight. West Bengal reported that 4,800 undocumented migrants from Bangladesh were deported in the last month, while Gujarat detained 362 migrants under Operation Delta Hunt launched on 2 June 2026. The Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has issued a high‑level directive to “detect, identify and deport/send back” illegal migrants, prompting a debate on the difference between pushback and formal deportation.
Key Developments
- West Bengal Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari announced the deportation of 4,800 “illegal infiltrators” and the creation of “holding centres” in border districts.
- Gujarat police, under Operation Delta Hunt, detained 362 undocumented Bangladeshi migrants and questioned 782 suspected foreign nationals.
- Union Home Minister Amit Shah said a high‑level committee on demographic change will identify and deport every infiltrator.
- Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma advocated a “pushback” policy for undocumented migrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar, including Rohingyas.
- The MHA policy directs border forces to capture biometrics and immediately “send back” intercepted nationals, citing the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025.
Important Legal Provisions
The term “illegal migrant” is defined in Section 2(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Earlier laws such as the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 and the Foreigners Act, 1946 have been subsumed by the 2025 Act, but their procedural legacy remains.
Section 29 of the 2025 Act empowers the Central Government to order removal of a foreigner on security grounds, while Section 26 authorises police (rank ≥ Head Constable) to arrest without a warrant. The Act also mandates data sharing by carriers, hotels and hospitals (Sections 10, 12, 17) to aid identification.
Internationally, the principle of non‑refoulement has been invoked by Indian courts, especially in cases involving Rohingya asylum seekers, but India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Exam Relevance
- Constitutional limits: Supreme Court judgments (e.g., Louis De Raedt) affirm the state’s absolute power to expel foreigners, yet stress procedural compliance – a classic GS2: Polity question.
- International law vs domestic law: The clash between non‑refoulement and the government’s “pushback” policy tests knowledge of GS3: International Relations.
- Demographic concerns: The high‑level committee on demographic change links to GS1: Society & Social Justice.
- Administrative machinery: Role of MHA, MEA, and state task forces illustrates federal‑state coordination – a GS2: Polity topic.
Way Forward
For a balanced approach, the government should:
- Clearly define “pushback” in statutory language to avoid legal ambiguity.
- Ensure that any removal follows the procedural safeguards prescribed in the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, including consular notification under the Vienna Convention.
- Strengthen data‑collection mechanisms at borders while respecting privacy and human‑rights norms.
- Facilitate dialogue with neighbouring countries to manage cross‑border migration jointly.
- Provide periodic reports to Parliament to maintain democratic oversight.
These steps will help align security objectives with constitutional guarantees and international obligations, a balance that UPSC candidates must be able to analyse.