कोलकाता हाई कोर्ट ने बांग्लादेशी संदेहियों की लंबी हिरासत पर प्रक्रिया का सवाल किया

Can You Return All Those Who Crossed the Border in the 1970s? Calcutta High Court Questions Prolonged Detention of Suspected Bangladeshi

Introduction

The Calcutta High Court has raised an important constitutional question concerning the Bangladeshi detention in India, particularly the prolonged detention of a person whose nationality has not apparently been conclusively established through a procedurally fair determination.

On 8 October 2026, Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya questioned the continued detention of a man who had allegedly been suspected of being a Bangladeshi national and had remained in custody for nearly two months.

The Court’s central concern was not that the State lacks the power to identify, detain or deport a foreign national. Indian law undoubtedly gives the Union Government extensive powers in relation to immigration, foreign nationals, removal and national security.

The concern was more fundamental:

“Can a person be kept in detention for an extended period merely because the authorities suspect that he is a foreign national, without demonstrating that the statutory procedure has been properly followed and without giving him an effective opportunity to contest the allegation?”

During the hearing, the Court posed a striking question:

“In 1970s, how many crossed the border? Is it possible to send all of them back?”

The Court further questioned:

“Unless you follow due process how can a person be detained?”

These observations are particularly significant because they come at a time when questions concerning citizenship, electoral rolls, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), undocumented migration and alleged possession of Indian identity documents have assumed considerable public importance in West Bengal.

What Happened Before the Calcutta High Court?

According to the reported proceedings, the man was taken into custody by the police on 8 August 2026 and had remained detained for approximately two months.

The State’s case apparently was that there were grounds to suspect that he was a Bangladeshi national and that certain Indian documents relied upon by him may have been obtained through false or fraudulent means.

The State also appears to have relied upon statements made by members of the man’s family.

The Court, however, wanted to know whether a family member’s statement, by itself, could establish the nationality of another person.

Justice Bhattacharyya reportedly asked:

“Does family member statement prove he is Bangladeshi?”

This question goes to the heart of the matter.

- Suspicion is not the same thing as adjudication.

- A person may be suspected of being a foreign national. That suspicion may justify an inquiry. It may, depending upon the statutory framework and circumstances, justify appropriate restrictions or even lawful detention.

- But the suspicion itself cannot automatically become the final proof of nationality.

- The authorities must still establish the legal basis for the action taken against the individual.

The Court also questioned the material relied upon for passing the deportation order and noted that the order appeared to have been passed during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court.

The Most Important Question: Can Detention Continue Indefinitely?

This is perhaps the most significant aspect of the proceedings.

There is a fundamental difference between:

- identifying a suspected foreign national;

- investigating his nationality;

- passing an order regulating his stay;

- detaining him pursuant to lawful authority; and

- actually deporting him.

These stages cannot simply be collapsed into one another.

The State may legitimately investigate whether an individual is an Indian citizen or a foreigner. But the existence of an investigation does not necessarily provide an unlimited licence for detention.

The constitutional protection of personal liberty under Article 21 is available to a “person”, not merely to a citizen.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised that foreigners are entitled to the protection of Article 21, although they do not possess the citizen-only rights under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) relating to movement and residence. In Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 554, the Supreme Court recognised this distinction.

Therefore, the legal proposition is not that a foreigner has an absolute right to remain in India.

He does not.

The proposition is narrower and more important:

Even a foreign national is entitled to protection against arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty.

The Law Has Changed: The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 Has Replaced the Foreigners Act, 1946

There is an important statutory development which must not be overlooked while analysing this 2026 controversy.

The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 came into force on 1 September 2025. The Act repealed, among other statutes, the Foreigners Act, 1946.

Therefore, a 2026 case must principally be examined under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, together with the applicable Rules, Orders and constitutional principles.

This distinction is important because many reports and older legal discussions continue to refer to the Foreigners Act, 1946.

The new legislation substantially consolidates India’s immigration and foreigners regime.

What Does the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 Provide?

Section 7 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 gives the Central Government power to issue orders, directions or instructions regulating or restricting the entry, departure, presence or continued presence of foreigners in India.

The provision permits directions concerning:

- entry into India;

- departure from India;

- remaining in India;

- removal from India;

- restrictions upon movement;

- residence at a particular place;

- furnishing proof of identity; and

- other regulatory conditions.

The statute therefore unquestionably recognises the State’s authority to regulate the presence of foreigners.

But that does not mean that every person suspected of being a foreigner can automatically be detained indefinitely.

The power must be exercised within the statutory framework and consistently with constitutional limitations.

Also Read: Manipur Relief Camps: Supreme Court Seeks Probe Into 25 Unnatural Deaths

Section 16: The Burden of Proof Is Important — But So Is the Procedure

A particularly important provision is Section 16 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025.

It provides that where a question arises as to whether a person is or is not a foreigner, the onus of proving that the person is not a foreigner lies upon that person, subject to the statutory framework.

This is broadly the successor to the burden-of-proof principle historically contained in Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

This point should not be misunderstood.

The fact that the individual carries the statutory burden does not mean that the executive authorities are entitled to dispense with fair procedure.

The Supreme Court has recently made precisely this distinction in a significant 2026 decision concerning foreigner-status proceedings in Assam.

Supreme Court’s 2026 Ruling: Fair Process Remains Mandatory

In Sabitri Dey @ Swasthi Dey v. Union of India & connected matters, the Supreme Court dealt with a batch of cases involving 27 persons who had been declared foreigners by Foreigners Tribunals.

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned decisions and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Court made a critical distinction.

The State has a legitimate and compelling interest in preventing persons who are not legally entitled to Indian citizenship from falsely claiming Indian nationality.

But that objective must be pursued through a process which is:

- fair,

- lawful, and

- reasonable.

The Supreme Court specifically held that the statutory burden upon the person proceeded against does not eliminate the requirement of a fair adjudicatory process.

The Supreme Court also emphasised that foreigner status has consequences extending far beyond an ordinary administrative dispute. A declaration may result in:

- detention;

- deportation;

- separation from family;

- disruption of community ties; and

- potentially even statelessness.

Consequently, procedural fairness assumes exceptional importance.

This recent Supreme Court ruling provides a very important constitutional backdrop to the questions now being raised before the Calcutta High Court.

Suspicion of Fraudulent Documents Is Not the Same as Proof of Foreign Nationality

The State reportedly argued that if documents such as Aadhaar or PAN were obtained on the basis of forged documents, that could constitute a ground for deportation.

There is force in the proposition that fraudulent documentation cannot be used as a means of acquiring rights to which a person is not legally entitled.

But there is another legal question:

What exactly does the fraudulent document establish?

Suppose a person possesses a forged Aadhaar card.

That may establish, subject to proof, that the Aadhaar document was fraudulently obtained.

It does not automatically answer every separate question concerning nationality.

Similarly:

- possession of an Indian identity document does not by itself conclusively establish citizenship;

- invalidity of an identity document does not necessarily, without more, establish Bangladeshi nationality;

- a family statement may constitute evidence, but its evidentiary value must be assessed in context;

- a person’s alleged admission must be examined as to when, where, before whom and under what circumstances it was made.

This is why the Court’s reported question — “Does family member statement prove he is Bangladeshi?” — is legally significant.

Nationality is a question of law and fact.

It must be established through legally relevant material.

What About People Who Crossed the Border in the 1970s?

The Court’s rhetorical question about the 1970s deserves careful consideration.

The India-Bangladesh border has a complicated historical background.

The creation of Bangladesh in 1971 was accompanied by large-scale population movement. Over subsequent decades, people moved across what was, and remains, a geographically porous border.

But one must avoid two opposite legal errors.

First Error: Every Long-Term Resident Is Automatically an Indian Citizen

That is incorrect.

Long residence in India, possession of certain documents, or social integration does not automatically answer every question concerning citizenship.

Citizenship is governed by the Constitution and the Citizenship Act, 1955, subject to its applicable provisions.

Second Error: Anyone Suspected of Having Entered From Bangladesh Can Automatically Be Deported

That is equally problematic.

The State must establish the person’s legal status through the applicable statutory framework.

A historical allegation that someone entered India decades ago cannot, without a legally sustainable process, simply be converted into an indefinite detention order.

This is precisely where the distinction between illegal immigration, foreigner status, citizenship and detention becomes essential.

West Bengal Is Not Assam: The Legal Distinction Matters

Another important point is that the special citizenship regime concerning certain migrants in Assam must not be mechanically transplanted to West Bengal.

Section 6A of the Citizenship Act contains a special statutory framework concerning persons of Indian origin who came to Assam from the specified territory during particular periods.

That is a distinct statutory arrangement.

The legal position concerning a person allegedly entering West Bengal from what is now Bangladesh must therefore be analysed under the general citizenship and immigration framework applicable to West Bengal.

This makes the question of when, how and under what legal provision a person acquired Indian citizenship extremely important.

Can the Government Deport a Foreign National?

Yes.

The Government has broad statutory authority to regulate the stay of foreigners and to remove persons who are legally found to be foreigners and whose presence is not permitted.

Section 29 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 expressly empowers the Central Government to direct the removal of a foreigner from India for contravention of the Act, rules or orders, or on the basis of an adverse security report. Government officers are given reasonable powers necessary to enforce such directions.

Therefore, the Calcutta High Court’s observations should not be read as saying that Bangladeshis or other foreign nationals cannot be deported.

That would be an incorrect interpretation.

The real issue is:

Has the person been legally established to be a foreigner, and has the executive action, including detention and deportation, been taken in accordance with law?

Detention and Deportation Are Not Identical

This distinction is frequently overlooked in public debates.

The power to remove a foreigner does not necessarily mean that the person may be detained for an unlimited period while the authorities take their time to establish the case.

Detention requires legal authority.

The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 contains a statutory framework for enforcement. It also provides specific powers of arrest in certain circumstances. Section 26 permits a police officer not below the rank of Head Constable to arrest without warrant where a person has contravened, or there is reasonable suspicion of contravention of, Section 3 or rules/orders made thereunder; the provision also refers to the applicable safeguards under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Thus, the precise legal source of detention becomes crucial.

Questions the Authorities Should Be Able to Answer

- Under which statutory provision was the person detained?

- Which authority ordered the detention?

- What was the factual basis?

- Was the person informed of the basis of the action?

- What material establishes that he is a foreign national?

- Has a lawful removal/deportation order been passed?

- Who passed that order?

- Was the person given an opportunity to challenge the material relied upon?

- Why is continued detention necessary?

- What is the realistic timeline for removal?

These questions become increasingly important as detention continues.

The Court’s Concern About the Detention Memo

The reported proceedings indicate that the State initially resisted handing over the detention/arrest memo to the petitioner’s counsel.

The Court reportedly rejected that objection.

This is an important procedural point.

A person cannot meaningfully challenge detention if he does not know the legal basis on which he has been deprived of liberty.

The Supreme Court has consistently treated procedural safeguards surrounding deprivation of liberty as an essential part of constitutional governance.

An executive authority cannot simply say:

“We suspect you are a foreigner; therefore remain in custody until we finish verifying everything.”

The question is whether the detention itself remains legally justified while that verification continues.

The 2026 Supreme Court Ruling Strengthens the Due-Process Argument

The most important recent development is that the Supreme Court has already emphasised that foreigner-status proceedings must satisfy constitutional standards of fairness.

In Sabitri Dey, the Court explained that even when the person ultimately fails to establish Indian citizenship, the process by which that determination is reached must remain fair, lawful and reasonable.

The Court also made clear that even an ex parte proceeding does not give a statutory tribunal licence to mechanically declare a person a foreigner.

The decision requires meaningful consideration of:

- service of notice;

- the grounds on which foreigner status is alleged;

- opportunity to respond;

- evidence produced by the State;

- evidence produced by the individual; and

- reasons supporting the final conclusion.

The Supreme Court therefore did not abolish the burden upon the person claiming Indian citizenship.

Instead, it insisted that the burden must operate within a fair adjudicatory structure.

That principle is highly relevant to any judicial examination of prolonged detention based upon disputed nationality.

Article 14 Also Matters

The issue is not confined to Article 21.

Article 14 protects equality before the law and equal protection of laws.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised that constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 21 are not confined exclusively to Indian citizens.

Therefore, the executive cannot act arbitrarily merely because the person is suspected to be a foreigner.

At the same time, Article 14 does not prevent the State from treating citizens and foreigners differently where the law legitimately requires different treatment.

The constitutional requirement is that the distinction and the action taken pursuant to it must have legal authority and must not be arbitrary.

The State Has a Legitimate Interest — But So Does Liberty

A balanced legal analysis must acknowledge both sides.

India has a sovereign right to determine:

- who may enter its territory;

- who may remain;

- who is entitled to citizenship;

- who has entered illegally;

- who has used fraudulent documents; and

- who must leave the country.

National security and territorial integrity are legitimate governmental concerns.

The Supreme Court itself has recognised the State’s legitimate and compelling interest in preventing persons who are not legally entitled to Indian citizenship from securing such status through false claims or misuse of legal processes.

But constitutional governance requires the State to exercise these powers according to law.

The opposite proposition — that national security concerns eliminate procedural safeguards — would be dangerous.

The constitutional balance is therefore:

Strong State power + lawful procedure + judicial oversight.

The FRRO Question

The proceedings also raise an institutional question.

The State reportedly sought to have the petitioner approach the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO).

The Court, however, noted that the man had been detained by the police and that the detention memo had been issued by police authorities.

This distinction is important.

When liberty is challenged before a constitutional court, the authority responsible for the deprivation of liberty must be able to identify the legal source of that deprivation.

Administrative responsibility cannot be shifted merely by directing the detained person from one office to another.

The constitutional court is entitled to examine whether the deprivation of liberty has a lawful foundation.

Deportation Order Passed During Pendency of Proceedings

Another significant aspect reported from the hearing is that a deportation order was passed by the FRRO after proceedings were already pending before the High Court.

This raises a question of judicial propriety and procedural fairness.

Where an individual approaches a constitutional court challenging detention or executive action, subsequent administrative action concerning the same subject matter may require careful scrutiny.

It does not automatically become invalid merely because it was passed during litigation.

But the authority must ensure that the subsequent order is:

- independently authorised;

- based upon relevant material;

- procedurally valid;

- not designed to defeat judicial review; and

- consistent with any existing judicial order.

The chronology of events can therefore become legally significant.

What the Calcutta High Court Has Not Held

It is equally important not to overstate the proceedings.

The Court has not held that:

- all persons suspected to be Bangladeshi nationals must be released;

- illegal immigrants cannot be detained;

- Bangladeshis cannot be deported;

- possession of Aadhaar or PAN conclusively proves Indian citizenship;

- all persons who entered India in the 1970s are Indian citizens; or

- the Government has no authority to investigate nationality.

The reported observations concern the procedure, evidentiary basis and continuing justification for detention in the particular case.

The writ petition was reportedly released and directed to be placed before the appropriate Bench having jurisdiction over SIR-related matters, with the matter to be placed before Justice Krishna Rao on 14 October 2026.

Therefore, the ultimate legal determination remains to be seen.

Why This Case Is Constitutionally Important

In my view, the real importance of this proceeding lies beyond the individual petitioner.

The case presents a difficult constitutional question:

How does a constitutional democracy distinguish between legitimate immigration enforcement and arbitrary deprivation of liberty?

That question will become increasingly important as technology, electoral-roll verification, Aadhaar records, PAN records, police intelligence, immigration databases and SIR-related exercises increasingly interact.

A person may have:

- an Aadhaar card;

- a PAN card;

- a voter identity card;

- electoral-roll presence;

- land records;

- school records;

- birth records;

- family records; or

- other Indian documents.

But no single document should be treated mechanically as answering every question concerning citizenship.

Conversely, an allegation that a document is fraudulent should not automatically substitute for a legally reasoned determination of nationality.

The courts must examine the totality of legally relevant material.

A Lawyer’s Perspective: The Three Questions That Should Always Be Asked

In cases involving alleged illegal immigration, I would separate the controversy into three distinct questions.

Question 1: Is the Person an Indian Citizen?

This is a question of citizenship law and facts.

Question 2: If He Is Not a Citizen, Is He a Foreigner Whose Presence in India Is Legally Impermissible?

This requires application of the immigration and foreigners framework.

Question 3: Even If He Is a Foreigner, Is His Present Detention Lawful and Necessary?

This is a separate constitutional question concerning personal liberty.

The mistake often made in such cases is to assume that answering Question 1 automatically answers Question 3.

It does not.

A person may ultimately be held to be a foreign national, yet the authorities must still justify the manner and duration of detention in accordance with law.

The Larger Message of the Calcutta High Court

The sentence that deserves attention is not simply:

“How many crossed the border in the 1970s?”

The deeper judicial message is:

A difficult immigration problem cannot be solved by abandoning due process.

India certainly has the sovereign authority to protect its borders.

It can identify illegal entrants.

It can prosecute offences involving forged documents.

It can cancel unlawful immigration benefits.

It can restrict the movement of foreigners.

It can order removal where the law permits.

It can deport foreign nationals.

But every one of these powers must operate through a legal framework.

That is the essence of constitutionalism.

Conclusion

The Calcutta High Court’s intervention is therefore significant not because it has weakened India’s power to deport illegal foreign nationals, but because it has asked a more basic question:

Before depriving a person of liberty for nearly two months, where is the legal and evidentiary foundation for that detention?

That question becomes particularly serious when the alleged foreign entry is said to have occurred many years ago and when the authorities are still in the process of determining the person’s nationality.

The State undoubtedly has a legitimate interest in identifying and removing persons who are not legally entitled to remain in India.

But immigration enforcement cannot become a process of indefinite detention based merely on suspicion.

The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 gives the Government substantial powers over foreigners, including regulation of their presence and removal. At the same time, the Constitution continues to protect personal liberty, and the Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Sabitri Dey has reaffirmed that foreigner-status determination must follow a fair, lawful and reasonable process.

Ultimately, the question is not whether India has the right to protect its borders.

It unquestionably does.

The question is whether the power to protect the border is being exercised through the rule of law.

That is why the Calcutta High Court’s question — “Unless you follow due process how can a person be detained?” — deserves serious consideration.

A foreigner has no fundamental right to remain in India merely because he has lived here for years. But the State has no constitutional licence to deprive any person of liberty without lawful authority and fair procedure.

That balance lies at the heart of India’s constitutional system.

Need Legal Advice on Citizenship, Immigration, Detention or Deportation?

If you or a family member is facing detention as a suspected foreign national, citizenship-related proceedings, deportation proceedings, immigration disputes, or questions concerning Indian citizenship, it is important to obtain professional legal advice at the earliest stage.

Adv. Tarun Choudhury

Supreme Court Advocate | 25+ Years of Legal Experience

📞 Call: 9650499965

💬 WhatsApp: 8851978611

📧 Email: [email protected]

For a detailed consultation concerning your legal position, available remedies and the appropriate strategy before the concerned authority or court, contact Adv. Tarun Choudhury.

Citation / Legal Authorities

- Calcutta High Court, proceedings before Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, 8 October 2026, concerning prolonged detention of a person suspected of being a Bangladeshi national. The reported proceedings record the Court’s questions concerning detention from 8 August 2026, the evidentiary basis for alleged Bangladeshi nationality, family statements, and the subsequent deportation order.

- Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, particularly Sections 7, 16, 26 and 29.

- Ministry of Home Affairs Notification S.O. 3981(E), dated 31 August 2025, bringing the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 into force from 1 September 2025.

- Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 554, concerning the constitutional rights of foreigners and the distinction between Article 21 protections and citizen-specific rights under Article 19.

- Sabitri Dey @ Swasthi Dey v. Union of India & connected matters, Supreme Court of India, 13 July 2026, reaffirming that determination of citizenship/foreigner status must be through a fair, lawful and reasonable process and remanding 27 cases for fresh adjudication.

- Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India, 5 December 2006, concerning the statutory framework for identification of foreigners and the Foreigners Act regime.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can a Suspected Bangladeshi National Be Detained in India Without Following Due Process?

No. Bangladeshi detention in India must have a lawful statutory basis and comply with constitutional safeguards. Although the Government has powers to regulate, detain and remove foreign nationals under the applicable immigration law, detention cannot be based merely on suspicion without legal authority and appropriate procedure. Article 21 of the Constitution protects personal liberty and applies to every “person”, including foreigners.

2. Can India Deport a Person Suspected of Being a Bangladeshi National?

Yes, where the person is legally established to be a foreign national and the applicable immigration law authorises removal. The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 gives the Central Government powers concerning the entry, stay and removal of foreigners. However, a mere allegation that someone is Bangladeshi does not automatically establish foreign nationality; the prescribed legal process must be followed.

3. Does Possession of Aadhaar, PAN or a Voter ID Prove Indian Citizenship?

Not necessarily. Aadhaar, PAN, voter ID and other identity documents should not automatically be treated as conclusive proof of Indian citizenship. Conversely, if an authority alleges that an identity document was fraudulently obtained, that allegation does not necessarily, by itself, establish that the person is a Bangladeshi national. Citizenship must be determined by applying the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions to the evidence.

4. What Does the Calcutta High Court’s 2026 Observation About People Crossing the Border in the 1970s Mean?

The Calcutta High Court’s reported observation highlights the importance of individualised and legally sustainable determination of nationality. The Court questioned whether people who allegedly crossed the India-Bangladesh border decades ago could simply be identified and returned without examining their individual circumstances and following due process. The observation should not be interpreted as holding that every person who crossed the border in the 1970s is an Indian citizen or that foreign nationals cannot be deported.

5. What Legal Remedies Are Available Against Unlawful Detention or Deportation Proceedings Involving Suspected Bangladeshi Nationals?

Depending upon the facts, a person facing Bangladeshi detention in India, foreigner-status proceedings or deportation may seek appropriate legal remedies before the competent court or authority. A constitutional writ petition, including a petition seeking habeas corpus, may be relevant where detention is alleged to be unlawful. The precise remedy depends upon the detention order, the material relied upon by the authorities, the person’s citizenship documents and the stage of the proceedings.

Key Takeaways

- Bangladeshi detention in India must follow due process: The Calcutta High Court questioned the continued detention of a man suspected of being a Bangladeshi national for nearly two months and stressed that detention must have a lawful basis.

- Suspicion alone does not conclusively establish foreign nationality: An allegation that a person is Bangladeshi must be examined through legally relevant evidence and the applicable statutory procedure.

- Foreigners are also protected by Article 21: Even though a foreign national does not enjoy all constitutional rights available exclusively to Indian citizens, the fundamental protection against arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty under Article 21 remains significant.

- India has the legal power to deport foreign nationals: The Government can regulate the entry, stay and removal of foreigners under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, but deportation must be carried out according to law.

- Detention and deportation are separate legal questions: Establishing that a person is a foreign national does not automatically justify indefinite detention. Authorities must also have a lawful basis for continued detention.

- Aadhaar, PAN or voter ID does not automatically prove citizenship: Identity documents may be relevant evidence, but Indian citizenship must ultimately be determined under the Constitution and applicable citizenship laws.

- Fraudulent documents do not automatically prove Bangladeshi nationality: If an Indian identity document is alleged to have been fraudulently obtained, that allegation must be distinguished from the separate question of whether the person is actually a Bangladeshi national.

- The Supreme Court has emphasised fair procedure in foreigner-status cases: In its 2026 decision in Sabitri Dey @ Swasthi Dey v. Union of India, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of a fair, lawful and reasonable process in determining citizenship/foreigner status.

- The 1970s border-crossing issue requires individual determination: The Calcutta High Court’s reported question concerning people who crossed the India-Bangladesh border decades ago highlights the need to examine individual cases rather than assume nationality solely from historical allegations.

- National security and constitutional liberty must be balanced: India has a legitimate sovereign interest in controlling illegal immigration and protecting its borders, but immigration enforcement must remain subject to statutory safeguards and constitutional judicial review.

In One Sentence

The Calcutta High Court’s 2026 proceedings highlight a crucial legal principle: India has the power to identify and deport foreign nationals, but Bangladeshi detention in India cannot become indefinite or arbitrary; nationality and continued detention must be dealt with through lawful procedure and due process.

Powered by Nyaya 247 News