BENGALURU: “The state cannot afford to be indifferent to unlawful immigration, for indifference today may become an institutional vulnerability tomorrow. Illegal immigration must be addressed with firmness,” observed the Karnataka High Court, directing the state to ensure the constitution and operationalisation of district level committees within three months in consonance with the mandate of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for detection, identification, detention and deportation of illegal immigrants and submit the compliance report.
On the revised SOP issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on May 2, 2025, the court stated that if the SOP mandates the constitution of District Level Committees, its commands cannot remain on paper. The jurisdictional police and the competent authorities must act in concert to ensure that cases of unauthorised immigration are dealt with. However, the material placed before the court does not satisfactorily demonstrate whether such committees have been constituted throughout the state or whether they are functional. The State Government must place on record the district-wise particulars of their constitution, composition and functioning, it added.
Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order, allowing the petitions filed by Nagendrappa T, a medical practitioner, challenging the two crimes registered with Bellandur police and Varthur police by two illegal immigrants from Bangladesh — Nasreena and Mohammed Saidul Islam — against him after he reported their illegal stay in the city to the police on July 22.
“The state must ensure that allegations of unauthorised immigration are dealt with promptly, uniformly and strictly in accordance with law. Neither administrative apathy nor indiscriminate action can be countenanced. Persons found to be staying in India without lawful authority must be dealt with under the applicable statutory and executive framework; equally, no person can be deprived of the protection of law merely on account of nationality or immigration status”, the court observed.
A nation that loses sight of who enters its territory, who resides within it and under what authority such residence continues risks weakening the very regulatory framework through which its sovereignty is exercised, the court said.
“It (illegal immigration) presents a challenge to the sovereignty of the state, the integrity of its borders and the efficacy of its internal security apparatus. Unregulated and undocumented movement of persons across national frontiers, when left unchecked, has the potential to create serious vulnerabilities in the machinery of governance.
It may facilitate identity fraud, exploitation by trafficking syndicates, organised criminal networks and other unlawful activities, besides placing unforeseen pressures upon public infrastructure, welfare administration and the legitimate distribution of public resources,” it noted.
One of the complainants, Mohammed Saidul Islam, alleged that the petitioner wrongfully restrained and assaulted him on the suspicion that persons residing in the labour shed were from Bangladesh.
The court noted that the persons against whom proceedings relating to unauthorised stay had commenced almost contemporaneously setting the criminal law in motion against the petitioner who had complained of their presence. The criminal justice system cannot be allowed to be turned on its head - where the person who reports an alleged illegality finds himself pursued by the criminal process at the instance of those against whom his information was directed.
“The court would fail in its duty if, despite the circumstances staring at it from the record, it were to compel the petitioner to undergo the rigours of an investigation and prosecution which are demonstrablytainted at their inception.
The two crimes, therefore, deserve to be obliterated, and the criminal petitions consequently deserve to succeed”, the court noted.
