New Delhi: The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to provide details of its compliance with the Union Home Ministry’s standard operating procedure (SOP) for dealing with suspected illegal immigrants. The SOP, issued on 2 May 2025, requires states and Union Territories to set up district-level special task forces to identify such persons and establish holding centres for those detained, pending deportation.
On 16 October, a bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna directed the government to make the prescribed committees functional in all districts where required within three months of receiving a copy of the order. It also asked the state to submit a district-wise compliance report.
The court observed that illegal immigration was not merely a violation of laws governing entry into and residence in the country, but also posed challenges to sovereignty, border integrity and internal security. It noted that unchecked, undocumented cross-border movement could facilitate identity fraud, human trafficking, organised crime and other unlawful activities, while placing pressure on public infrastructure, welfare administration and public resources.
“The State cannot afford to be indifferent to unlawful immigration, for indifference today may become an institutional vulnerability tomorrow,” the court said, adding that illegal immigration “must be addressed with firmness”.
It stressed that the SOP must be implemented “in letter and spirit” so that the issue was addressed through orderly legal administration rather than becoming a recurring source of public discord.
The court also quashed two criminal cases against a Bengaluru doctor, observing that they appeared to have been filed in retaliation for his complaint alerting authorities to suspected illegal immigrants. It issued the orders after hearing petitions filed by T. Nagendrappa seeking to quash the cases against him and action against suspected illegal immigration.
Also Read: Karnataka HC upholds validity of law curbing construction within 100 metres of protected monuments
Complaint filed 15 minutes after detention recommendation
Nagendrappa’s counsel, Girish Bharadwaj, submitted that his client had alerted authorities on 18 July about suspected undocumented Bangladeshi nationals living in makeshift labour sheds behind a government school in Kodathi village, along Sarjapur Main Road, Bengaluru. He had identified two people: Mohammed Saidul Islam and Nasreena.
Both subsequently approached different police stations and filed complaints against Nagendrappa. Saidul Islam approached Varthur police station, alleging wrongful restraint and assault, while Nasreena filed a complaint at Bellanduru police station accusing the doctor of assault and criminal intimidation.
The court noted that both complainants had provided addresses in Bangladesh while claiming to reside in Bengaluru. Material before it indicated that they lacked documents authorising their stay in India and had been classified by the authorities as persons staying in the country without lawful authority.
The chronology of Nasreena’s complaint drew particular scrutiny. At 11:30 am on 22 July, an investigating officer sent a communication recommending that she be lodged in a detention centre over her unauthorised stay. Just 15 minutes later, at 11:45 am, she filed her assault complaint.
“The proximity of these events is too conspicuous to be brushed aside as a mere coincidence,” Justice Nagaprasanna observed. The sequence, the judge added, cast a “serious shadow” over the prosecution’s argument.
The court clarified that suspected illegal immigration did not deprive a person of the protection of law. Police could not refuse to register a cognisable complaint solely because the complainant was a foreign national or was suspected of staying unlawfully in India. At the same time, the criminal justice system could not be used to retaliate against someone who had reported a suspected unauthorised stay.
In Saidul Islam’s case, the court considered a communication he had sent to the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) on 20 July concerning his unauthorised entry and stay. Taken together, the records and chronology lent weight to Nagendrappa’s contention that the complaints were retaliatory, the court found.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s 1992 ruling in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the High Court noted that criminal proceedings could be quashed if they were manifestly malicious or initiated with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance. It concluded that allowing the two cases to continue would amount to permitting criminal law to be used as an instrument of reprisal.
State directed to implement immigration SOP
The court also considered Nagendrappa’s plea for action against suspected illegal immigrants. It referred to the Home Ministry’s SOP which provides for verification within 30 days when a suspected illegal immigrant claims Indian citizenship or residence elsewhere in the country.
Once a person is identified as an illegal immigrant, authorities must record their biometric and demographic details and follow the prescribed legal process for handing them over to designated border-guards or Coast Guard authorities for deportation. The SOP also requires periodic reports on people handed over for deportation to be submitted to the Home Ministry through the FRRO.
The court said the state had not satisfactorily established whether the prescribed district-level committees had been constituted across Karnataka or were functioning. It directed the government to provide details of their constitution, composition and functioning.
Aditya Edara is a TPSJ alum currently interning with ThePrint.
(Edited by Chingkheinganbi Mayengbam)
Also Read: Why Karnataka HC quashed FIR over posters, ruled dissent against SC judgement isn’t promoting enmity
Please wrap.yoir head around this…
The court said that llegal immigration was not merely a violation of laws governing entry into and residence in the country, but also posed challenges to sovereignty, border integrity and internal security. It noted that unchecked, undocumented cross-border movement could facilitate identity fraud, human trafficking, organised crime and other unlawful activities, while placing pressure on public infrastructure, welfare administration and public resources.