Today, On 29th August, The Supreme Court asked the Centre if it plans to build a US-style border wall to prevent illegal immigration, noting the shared cultural and linguistic heritage of Bengali and Punjabi speakers, and sought details on deportation SOPs to Bangladesh.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday inquired whether the Centre intended to construct a border wall similar to that in the US to deter illegal immigration.
The court emphasized the “same legacy of cultural and linguistic heritage” shared by Bengali and Punjabi speakers in India and their counterparts across borders.
A bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi, and Vipul M Pancholi requested the Centre to provide information on the standard operating procedures (SOP) for deporting illegal migrants, particularly to Bangladesh.
The Gujarat government was also included as a party in the case.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, opposed a petition from the West Bengal Migrant Welfare Board that alleged the detention of Bengali-speaking migrant workers under suspicion of being Bangladeshi nationals, claiming that no aggrieved parties were present in court.
He stated,
“This court should not entertain petitions filed by these organisations and associations, which may be supported by some state governments. There are no aggrieved parties before the court. We know how some state governments thrive on illegal immigrants. Demographic changes have become a serious issue.”
The bench responded that those affected might not have the means to approach the apex court. Mehta, referring to advocate Prashant Bhushan, who represented the petitioner board and other NGOs, remarked that these “public spirited persons” should assist in bringing their cases to court, similar to efforts in the US regarding illegal immigration.
Justice Bagchi then asked Mehta,
“Do you want to build a border wall like in America to prevent illegal immigrants from entering India?”
Mehta replied,
“Certainly not but there are no individual complainants. How can the Union of India reply to the vague allegations made in the petition? Let some individual come saying I am being pushed out. We are trying to ensure immigrants don’t eat away at our resources. We can’t go by media reports. There are agents who facilitate illegal entry into the country.”
Justice Bagchi highlighted that national security, the integrity of the nation, and resource preservation are crucial, while also noting the shared cultural heritage that connects Bengali and Punjabi speakers across borders.
The bench requested clarification from the Union regarding this matter.
Bhushan alleged that Bengali-speaking individuals were being forcibly pushed into Bangladesh, stating,
“This has very drastic consequences…sometimes BSF people say you run to the other side or we will shoot you. Similarly, the Border Guard of Bangladesh also threatens and says if you don’t run to the other side, they will shoot.”
He referenced a case involving a pregnant woman who was pushed into Bangladesh, whose habeas corpus petition is currently pending in the Calcutta High Court. Bhushan sought interim relief to prevent states from forcibly deporting migrant workers to Bangladesh until their nationality was determined.
Read Also: Supreme Court Directs States & UTs to Issue Ration Cards to 80 Million Migrant Workers
Justice Bagchi differentiated between individuals attempting to enter India illegally and those already within the country, emphasizing the need for specific procedures for the latter group. The bench sought clarification on whether individuals speaking Bengali were automatically presumed to be foreigners.
Mehta assured that language would not be the basis for deportation and offered to submit a response to the petition, suggesting that the case be heard alongside the pending Rohingya matter. Justice Kant instructed Mehta to file replies for both cases.
Mehta noted that many European countries are grappling with illegal immigration, calling it “really worrisome.”
The bench agreed, acknowledging the complexity of the issue, as some nations welcome immigrants while others oppose them.
Earlier in the hearing, Bhushan pointed out that despite the Supreme Court’s notice on August 14 to nine states, no responses had been received. He brought attention to the habeas corpus petition filed by the family of a pregnant woman currently detained in Bangladesh, stating that the Calcutta High Court had postponed the case due to its pending status here.
The bench encouraged the high court to expedite the matter and clarified that the ongoing proceedings would not hinder the high court’s ability to resolve the habeas corpus petition.
Also Read: “Complete Migrant Labourer Ration Card Verification in 4 Weeks”: SC Orders States
Earlier, On August 14, the Supreme Court declined to issue an interim order concerning the PIL related to the detention of alleged Bangladeshi nationals. The PIL challenged the legality of detaining migrant workers, particularly in light of a Ministry of Home Affairs letter dated May 2, 2025, which authorized inter-state verification and detention of suspected illegal immigrants.
The petition asserted that migrant workers from West Bengal, primarily working in low-income and informal sectors across various states, are facing systemic social exclusion based on language, economic vulnerability, and precarious living conditions in detention states.
Case Title: West Bengal Migrant Workers Welfare Board & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 768/2025