States Asked to Identify ‘Illegal’ Immigrants, Without Deportation Mechanism

Central Government’s Move May Create Bureaucratic Bottlenecks, Humanitarian and Geopolitical Complications

May 20, 2025

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has reportedly issued a new directive to states and Union Territories, setting a 30-day deadline to verify the citizenship status of “suspected” undocumented immigrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar. This move is likely to create bureaucratic bottlenecks and trigger long-term humanitarian and geopolitical complications with no resolution mechanism in sight.

If the documents of “suspected” undocumented immigrants from the two countries are not verified within 30 days, they are to face deportation, states the order, as reported by The Indian Express. The MHA has also directed states to invoke their statutory powers to identify and detain such individuals, set up sufficient holding centres at the district level and establish special police-led task forces for detection and deportation.

Further, states must maintain records of those handed over for deportation and submit monthly reports to the Centre, while also coordinating with agencies like UIDAI and the Election Commission to prevent access to official identification and benefits.

The Legal Catch

The law is clear. Deportation cannot proceed unless the receiving country acknowledges the individual as its national and issues travel documents. Without this cooperation, there is no “lawful” deportation—only indefinite limbo.

Assam is a case in point. Thousands have been declared “foreigners” after the National Register of Citizens (NRC) exercise, yet they continue to live in detention or in semi-legal suspension because Bangladesh refuses to accept them. In the meantime, the state government bears the financial burden of round-the-clock detention.

In February, the Supreme Court rebuked the Assam government for detaining declared “foreigners” indefinitely and for its failure to arrange their deportation. Justice Abhay S. Oka pointedly asked the state’s chief secretary, “Are you waiting for some mahurat (auspicious time)?” State officials admitted they did not know where to send them.

Impossible Bureaucratic Ask

The new MHA order now asks state and district officials to verify identity documents within 30 days. But this assumes that such verification is quick and simple—it is not.

Identity verification in cases of alleged illegal immigration is rarely straightforward. Many individuals do not have the documents needed to prove their origin, especially those who are poor, displaced, or children. Even inter-state document verification within India has historically taken months.

During the NRC claims and objections phase, many people submitted legacy documents—voter lists, land records, birth certificates—from other Indian states. The NRC authorities in Assam had to send verification requests to those states. According to Nagaland Post, this process turned out to be painfully slow. Expecting such verification to be completed within a month, with deportation decisions hinging on it, is both unrealistic and dangerous.

Deportation—But How?

What happens after the 30 days? The MHA order reportedly states that those whose documents aren’t verified will face deportation. But how, exactly?

The Supreme Court, in Dongh Lian Kham & Anr. vs Union of India & Anr. (December 2015), noted that the MHA’s Foreigners Division had laid down a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for handling foreign nationals who claim refugee status. The Court observed that these SOPs, though internal guidelines, are “required” to be followed.

The 2011 SOP reads: “In cases in which diplomatic channels do not yield concrete results within a period of six months, the foreign national, who is not considered fit for grant of LTV (Long-Term Visa), will be released from detention centre subject to collection of biometric details, with conditions of local surety, good behaviour and monthly police reporting as an interim measure till issuance of travel documents and deportation.”

This position was reiterated in Parliament as well. On Dec. 9, 2014, the Minister of Home Affairs stated in a written reply in the Lok Sabha that deportation is carried out only after Emergency Travel Documents are issued by the concerned embassy or consulate and travel arrangements are finalised.

Diplomatic and Ground Realities

If travel documents from Bangladesh or Myanmar are not issued—and they often aren’t—there is no legal basis for deportation.

India’s relationship with Bangladesh is currently strained, to say the least. As for Myanmar, the country is under military rule, and the junta has lost control over large swathes of territory to armed militias, making coordinated repatriation virtually impossible. In such a context, unilateral moves are not only illegal, they are also diplomatically provocative.

Administrative Dead Ends

With no viable path for deportation, what remains are stop-gap measures: prolonged detention, pushbacks (which is a euphemism for forcible expulsion of individuals across a border without following legal procedures), or quiet releases under surveillance. Each of these comes with serious legal and ethical costs.

Prolonged detention raises constitutional questions under Article 21. Pushbacks violate international law. Releasing individuals without formal status risks leaving them in a state of permanent legal limbo.

Social Fallout

One of the insidious effect of this policy lies in its social and communal fallout.

Border regions in West Bengal, Assam, Tripura and other states in the Northeast are home to ethnically and linguistically interconnected populations. Many families straddle the border. A crackdown based on suspicion risks sweeping in Indian citizens—especially minorities, landless labourers and the internally displaced—who lack documentary proof.

The 30-day verification rule, combined with calls for district-level task forces and new detention centres, sets the stage for more such rights violations.

A Realistic Alternative

What is needed is a strategy grounded in law and realism—one that seeks to secure the borders, yes, but also recognises the legitimacy of cross-border ethnic ties and ensures that citizenship-related decisions are based on verifiable facts, not suspicion. Without that, this policy risks becoming just another paper decree with no exit plan.

You have just read a News Briefing by Newsreel Asia, written to cut through the noise and present a single story for the day that matters to you. Certain briefings, based on media reports, seek to keep readers informed about events across India, others offer a perspective rooted in humanitarian concerns and some provide our own exclusive reporting. We encourage you to read the News Briefing each day. Our objective is to help you become not just an informed citizen, but an engaged and responsible one.