Abstract:

Illegal migration into India from neighbouring countries, particularly Bangladesh, presents multidimensional challenge impacting national security, socio-economic stability, and demographic composition. This paper examines drivers of such migration and critiques India’s institutional response across legislative, administrative, and judicial domains. Special attention is given to Assam, state historically burdened by demographic shifts due to large-scale influxes of undocumented migrants. The study examines legislative interventions like IMDT Act, Section 6A of Citizenship Act, introduced under Assam Accord, highlighting their limited efficacy due to administrative lapses, political inertia, and legal ambiguities. The research underscores need for coordinated border management strategy leveraging technology, community participation, and diplomatic engagement for effective deportation and deterrence. It also advocates for judicial streamlining, centralized immigration databases, and humane detention practices. The paper explores socio-political consequences, including strain on welfare resources, risks of radicalization, and erosion of indigenous cultural identity in Assam. Concluding with call for pragmatic, legally sound and humane policy reforms, the study offers roadmap for balancing India’s constitutional obligations with imperative to preserve national sovereignty and internal harmony.

Keywords: Illegal migrants, Assam, Citizenship Act, IMDT Act, foreigners, Assam Accord

Introduction

Illegal migration from neighbouring countries to India represents a multifaceted challenge that continues to test India’s governance structures, security apparatus, and socio-economic resilience. Given India’s geopolitical position, sharing extensive and porous borders with countries such as Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Myanmar and Bhutan, inflow of undocumented migrants has escalated in recent decades. This trend is propelled by variety of factors including poverty, political instability, ethnic and religious persecution, and environmental vulnerabilities in these neighbouring nations. While India has historically maintained a tradition of humanitarianism and openness, current scale and nature of illegal migration necessitate a comprehensive and coordinated policy response to protect national interests while preserving human dignity.

At heart of any sustainable solution lies imperative to strengthen border management systems. India’s vast and difficult terrain borders remain vulnerable. Modernization of border infrastructure is urgently needed. Deployment of advanced technologies such as biometric entry-exit systems, electronic fencing, drones, radars, and thermal imaging can enhance real-time surveillance and reduce unauthorized crossings. A holistic border management approach would include integrating intelligence inputs and leveraging community participation, where local residents serve as vital eyes and ears, reporting suspicious activities and supporting enforcement. Investment in capacity building and training for border personnel is essential, equipping them to handle complex situations with both vigilance and empathy.

The judiciary plays indispensable role in shaping and enforcing immigration laws. Cases of illegal migration often become entangled in protracted legal battles where migrants seek to delay deportation through petitions and appeals. Courts must balance protection of individual rights with enforcement of national laws. Expedited hearings and clear judicial pronouncements are essential to discourage frivolous claims and to support government efforts in identifying and deporting illegal entrants. Judiciary’s role in distinguishing between genuine refugees, who may require protection under international law, and economic migrants is vital to maintaining integrity of India’s asylum policies. Judicial activism should complement executive actions, reinforcing legal environment that deters illegal entry and stay.

The responsibility of identifying and deporting illegal migrants rests primarily with executive branch. Government has faced significant challenges in streamlining this process due to fragmented data systems and diplomatic hurdles.

A centralized and digitized repository that integrates data from immigration checkpoints, police records and border patrol units is essential for accurate and timely identification of illegal migrants. Establishing specialized immigration enforcement units at central and state levels can enhance operational efficiency. Diplomatic engagement with neighbouring countries must be intensified to facilitate smooth and timely repatriation. Political sensitivities in source countries often delay deportation, necessitating robust bilateral agreements and confidence-building measures. In managing migrants awaiting deportation, humane detention facilities that adhere to international human rights standards must be established to ensure dignity and avoid adverse humanitarian implications.

Ramifications of unchecked illegal migration extend beyond administrative inconvenience; they have serious security and economic consequences. From security standpoint, illegal migrants can inadvertently or deliberately facilitate cross-border criminal activities such as drug trafficking, smuggling, and even infiltration by extremist groups. This risk is acute in border states facing insurgencies or communal tensions. Economically, influx of undocumented migrants places pressure on limited public resources, including healthcare, education, housing, and employment. Migrants often work in informal sectors under precarious conditions, which may depress wages and exacerbate unemployment among local populations. These dynamics contribute to social tension and undermine efforts toward inclusive development. Demographic shifts resulting from illegal migration can disrupt social cohesion and challenge implementation of welfare programs designed for citizen populations. Another sensitive but critical aspect of India’s immigration policy concerns visa regime for Pakistani nationals, particularly those seeking visas on humanitarian grounds relating to divided families. While humanitarian concerns warrant empathy, evidence suggests that this visa category is increasingly exploited for unauthorized stays or illegal migration. Such misuse poses risks to national security. A comprehensive reassessment of this policy is required to introduce stringent verification mechanisms such as biometric authentication, time-bound visa validity, and mandatory exit procedures. Enhanced digitization of visa issuance and tracking systems would promote transparency and reduce abuse. Recalibrating this policy is imperative to safeguard national interests while accommodating genuine humanitarian cases.

Case Study of Illegal Migration in Assam

Changes in citizenship laws manifests politics of placemaking, marking out ethno-spaces and setting in motion of a process whereby citizen’s association with descent is affirmed (Roy, 2014). One of most intense frontlines in India’s battle against illegal immigration and democratic change is Assam, largest state in Northeast. Since independence, Assam has been hotspot of illegal migration from Bangladesh. There exists sufficient public database to suggest that approximately 40% of illegal migrants from Bangladesh have settled down in Assam.

While various steps have been taken by Government of India at various points of time over last several decades to stem migration, problem however continues to persist. At turn of last century, Assam’s Muslim population stood at 12.4 percent. By time of first post-independence census in 1951, this figure had nearly doubled to 24.7 percent. As per 2011 Census, Muslim population in Assam further increased to 34.2 percent and is now estimated to have reached approximately 40 percent. Several districts—including Barpeta, Bongaigaon, Darrang, Goalpara, Hailakandi, Karimganj, Morigaon, Nagaon, Hojai, and South Salmara—report Muslim populations exceeding 50 percent (Majumder, 2024: 288).

Prior to independence, Assam was a Governor’s Province. With partition of India, Pakistan emerged as two separate regions: West Pakistan and East Pakistan. A substantial wave of illegal migration from East Pakistan into Assam followed. Indian government enacted Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950, to protect interests of indigenous Assamese communities (Tandon, 2022: 287–288). The legislation's statement of objects and reasons explicitly recognized disruptive impact of mass influxes from East Bengal on Assam’s economy and internal security. Following this, 1951 Census saw preparation of first National Register of Citizens (NRC) for Assam, under direction of Ministry of Home Affairs. Despite creation of Bangladesh in 1971, illegal migration into Assam continued unabated. This demographic transformation was neither organic nor incidental; it was driven primarily by persistent and large-scale infiltration, particularly through riverine and porous border regions along Brahmaputra—from Dhubri to Darrang.

Over time, migrants dispersed into cities, towns, and rural areas, including tribal belts such as Bodoland, and autonomous councils of Tiwa, Mising, Karbi Anglong, and North Cachar Hills. Political motives—especially creation of loyal vote banks—combined with administrative corruption, civic apathy, and weak enforcement, contributed to systematic and sustained demographic shift. This transformation lies at heart of Assam’s contemporary political dynamics. The anti-immigrant Assam Movement of 1970s and 1980s revolved around “three Ds”: detection, detention, and deportation of illegal immigrants. Intensity of public unrest eventually led to signing of Assam Accord on August 15, 1985. The Accord, a tripartite agreement among Central Government, Assam Government, Assam Students’ Union (AASU), and All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad, aimed to safeguard cultural, economic, and political rights of indigenous Assamese (Majumder, 2024: 288).

In pursuit of these objectives, Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act, 1983 (IMDT Act), was enacted. Intended to expedite identification and deportation of illegal migrants in Assam, Act proved ineffective. Key flaw was burden of proof being placed on government, making enforcement cumbersome and administratively burdensome. The failure of Act led to its eventual invalidation by Supreme Court of India. Between 1980 and 1985, Assam witnessed widespread and often volatile agitations centered on migrant issue—culminating in Assam Accord, which is foundational document in Assam’s demographic and political discourse. If IMDT Act and 1983 state assembly election manifested tensions in processes of nationalisation of space, 1985 accord between Indian government and leaders of Assam movement and 1986 amendment in Citizenship Act of 1955, which inserted category of citizenship addressed exclusively to Assam, saw emergence of negotiated consensus (Roy, 2014). In 1971, in course of liberation war in Bangladesh, several lakhs of Hindu and Muslim refugees fled to Assam. In joint declaration on 8th February 1972, Prime Ministers of two countries assured ‘the continuance of all assistance to Bangladesh in the unprecedented task of resettling the refugees and displaced persons in Bangladesh’ (Baruah, 1999: 119). While not all refugees returned to Bangladesh, more migrants continued to cross border into Assam, presence of large number of ‘foreigners’ instilled a sense of unease at change of demography, language and access to resources, primarily land and employment, around which powerful popular movement wove itself (Roy, 2014). The Citizenship Act, 1955 amended in 1986, added Article 6A, which made way for a sixth category of citizenship along with the birth, descent, registration, naturalisation and by incorporation of foreign territory into India. The amended Act laid down that (1) all persons of Indian origin who came to Assam before 1st January 1966 from a specified territory (meaning territories included in Bangladesh) and had been ordinarily resident of Assam are considered as citizens of India from the date unless they choose not to be, (2) (a) person of Indian origin from the specified territories who came to India on or after 1st January 1966 but before 25th March 1971 and have been resident in Assam since and (b) have been detected in accordance with the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Foreigners (Tribunals) Orders, 1964 (c) upon registration, will be considered as citizens of India, from date of expiry of period of ten years from date of detection as a foreigner. In interim period, they will enjoy all facilities, including Indian passports, but will not have right to vote. IMDT Act, was scrapped in 2005 by Supreme Court, removing what was largely seen in Assam as anomalous and unfair exception. In its judgment delivered on 12th July 2005, almost five years after petition seeking its repeal was made by Sarbananda Sonowal, a former President of AASU, former Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Asom Gana Parishad (AGP) and Member of Parliament (MP), three judge Supreme Court bench declared certain provisions of IMDT Act as unconstitutional. While grounds on which Supreme Court declared the Act unconstitutional were specifically questions of legal procedure, general principles which were articulated in the process have ramifications for way in which terms of citizenship get defined and interpreted. While declaring IMDT Act unconstitutional, court described migration not only as ‘illegal’ entry into foreign territory, but as an act of aggression, arguing within a discursive framework that makes bounded notion of citizenship, with policing of boundaries and determination of citizenship construed as significant manifestation of state sovereignty. Assam movement, as campaign of 1980s came to be called, had at its core issue of outsiders in Assam, in particular, government’s policy of admission and enfranchisement of ‘foreigners’ of ‘illegal aliens’ from East Pakistan and later Bangladesh (Roy, 2014).

Assam Accord

The objective of ‘Assam Accord’ was to take appropriate steps towards arresting and containing illegal migration of foreigners into state of Assam. The Assam Accord provided the following:

a) The cut-off date for detection and deletion of foreigners was fixed at 1.1.1966. Persons who came to Assam prior to 1.1.1966 were outside Assam Accord and were to be regularised.

b) Persons who came to Assam between 1.1.1966 and 24.3.1971 were to be detected in accordance with Foreigners Act and Foreigners Tribunal Order. The names of such ‘detected’ persons would be deleted from electoral rolls and they would be required to get themselves registered with relevant registration offices. After period of 10 years from date of detection, names of such persons would be restored to electoral rolls.

c) Essentially all illegal migrants who had come to Assam 25.3.1971 onwards would be expelled from India. All persons who were expelled earlier but have since re-entered Assam shall be expelled again.

d) Provisions were made for adequate constitutional, legislative and administrative safeguards to protect, preserve and promote cultural, social, linguistic identity and heritage of Assamese people.

e) Provisions in Assam Accord included securement of India’s international border(s) with Bangladesh taking appropriate steps such as erection of physical barriers such as walls, wire fencing etc. at appropriate places, increased patrolling by security forces along international border, increasing number of check posts to prevent future infiltration. All necessary steps were to be undertaken to prevent infiltration, including construction of roads to facilitate patrolling, intensification of riverine patrolling etc.

f) Enforcement of law restricting foreigners acquiring immovable property in Assam.

g) Joint efforts of all stakeholders towards development and growth of Assam.

Introduction of Section 6A to Citizenship Act

Execution of Assam Accord was followed up by introduction of Section 6A in 1985, via Citizenship Amendment Act, 1985. Objective of introduction of Section 6A was to give effect to certain parts of Assam Accord, more particularly relating to detection and determination of foreigners and grant of citizenship. Statement of objects and reasons of this amendment indicated that its purpose was to give effect to Assam Accord and to grant deemed citizenship to all persons of Indian origin who came to Assam before 1.1.1966 including persons whose names were included in electoral rolls used for purpose of general election of 1967 and who have been ordinarily resident in Assam ever since and also to grant deemed citizenship, through registration, to those persons of Indian origin who came to Assam on or after 1.1.1966 but before 25.3.1971 from Bangladesh and have been ordinarily residents in Assam ever since.

Features of Section 6A of Citizenship Act

Region Specific Nature: Section 6A was specific to state of Assam for purpose of specifically addressing illegal migration from Bangladesh. (Tandon, 2022: 300)

Deemed Citizenship: All persons of Indian origin (from undivided India) who came from Bangladesh to Assam before 1.1.1966 and had since resided in Assam, were conferred ‘deemed’ Indian citizenship. 1.1.1966 was cut-off date for ‘deemed Indian citizenship’. (Tandon, 2022: 300)

Registration: Persons who came to Assam between 1.1.1966 and 25.3.1971 and had resided in Assam since, were required to get themselves registered with appropriate registration authority. Further, such persons were to be disenfranchised for a period of 10 years. A core requirement for being eligible for registration was that person should have come to Assam after 1.1.1966 but before 25.3.1971 and resided continuously in Assam since then (Anil Barman v. Union of India, W.P.No. 266/2019 (10.6.2019, Guwahati High Court). Hence ‘ordinary residence’ in Assam was a condition precedent (Ashma Khatun v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 8592/2018 (30.1.2019, Guwahati High Court). Registration was mandatory requirement and could be either voluntary or pursuant to an order of Foreigners Tribunal (under provisions of Foreigners Act and Foreigners Tribunal Order) declaring concerned person to be foreigner (Declaration Order) (Tandon, 2022: 301).

Time Period for Registration: Registration was required to be made within following prescribed timelines: An application for registration was required to be made in prescribed form by registrant with registering authority. R. 19 (1) of Citizenship Rules, within period of 30 days from date of receipt of Declaration Order of Foreigners Tribunal. The period of 30 days could be extended by registering authority, for reasons recorded in writing, to maximum of 60 days (R.19(2) of Citizenship Rules) (Tandon, 2022: 301).

Extension of Time for Registration: During course of registration exercise, it came to attention of government that numerous persons who had been declared as foreigners by Foreigners Tribunal did not apply for registration in timely manner. Applications of large number of people were rejected for being belated. In some cases, post a Declaration Order, instead of obtaining a registration, these persons had managed to get their names included in electoral rolls. Such aspects came to light once ‘quit India’ notices were issued by authorities to such persons (Md. Samsul Haqu v. Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal, W.P. (C) No. 464/2009 (7.9.2009, Guwahati High Court). The above issues were addressed by government by introduction of following one-time timelines in 2013 (R. 19 (2A) was introduced in Citizenship Rules with effect from 16.7.2013) (Tandon, 2022: 301).

Implementation of Assam Accord

Steps taken by Assam government towards implementation of Assam Accord are discussed below. On basis of information available on official website of Government of Assam, following progress has been made. (https://assamaccord.assam.gov.in/portlets/assam-accord-and-its-clauses).

Foreigners Issue: Clause 5 of Assam Accord contains provisions regarding detection and expulsion of foreigners from state of Assam (who have entered or re-entered post 24.3.1971). It also provides for registration and regularisation of (Assam domiciled) foreigners who have entered Assam within designated dates. The progress made is as follows: (Tandon, 2022: 339)

a) The government has suitably strengthened its machinery for more effective and expeditious foreigner’s detection and government detection.

b) Thousands of re-infiltrators from Bangladesh have been detected and deported. This is continuous and ongoing process.

c) There are about 100 Foreigners Tribunals functioning in Assam for detection and deportation of foreigners.

Preservation and Promotion of Cultural, Social, Linguistic Identity and Heritage of Assamese People: Clause 6 of Assam Accord requires provision of constitutional, legislative, administrative safeguards to protect, preserve and promote cultural, social, linguistic identity and heritage of Assamese population. The progress made is as follows: (Tandon, 2022: 339)

a) Establishment of Srimanta Sankardeva Kalashetra Society which is committed to work \for preservation, promotion and upliftment of people of Assam.

b) Modernisation of Jyoti Chitraban Film Studio and efforts to make studio film hub of entire north-eastern region.

c) Financial assistance to satras of Assam as well as historic monuments for their preservation, protection and development.

Economic Development: Clause 7 of Assam Accord requires government to ensure all all-round economic development of Assam. Following steps have been taken: (Tandon, 2022: 340)

a) Construction of rail-cum-road bridge(s) over various places.

b) Setting up of Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., which has displayed creditable performance since its commencement in 1999 and has been conferred status of Mini Ratna PSU.

c) Reopening of Shil Ghat Jute Mill

d) Setting up of Assam Gas Cracker Project

e) Setting up of Indian Institute of Technology and other Central / State Universities.

Security of International Border: Clause 9 of Assam Accord mandates government to secure international borders to prevent infiltration from Bangladesh. This includes construction of physical barriers, fencing, patrolling, roads along border etc. The progress made is as follows: (Tandon, 2022: 340-341):

a) Out of total length of 280 kilometres of Indo-Bangladesh border in Assam, 208 kilometres have been fenced.

b) With respect to riverine / char area of border, feasibility study is ongoing for use of ‘high-tech physical and non-physical’ barriers to seal these areas.

c) Floodlight work along border is in progress and numerous border check posts set up.

Prevention of Encroachment of Government Land: Clause 10 of Assam Accord mandates strict enforcement of laws to prevent encroachment of government lands and lands in tribal belts and blocks; and to evict unauthorised encroachers. Land administration is being done as per relevant provisions of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886 and its rules (Tandon, 2022: 341).

Restricting Acquisition of Immovable Property: Clause 11 of Assam Accord mandates strict enforcement of laws to restrict acquisition of immovable property by foreigners in Assam. Efforts are made to strictly implement Assam Alienation of Land (Regulation) Act, 1980 (Tandon, 2022: 341)

Registration of Births and Deaths: Clause 12 of Assam Accord requires maintenance of birth and death registers. About 700 centres were set up in Assam by Health and Family Welfare Department to issue birth and death certificates. Steps are taken to computerise process and introduce online system (Tandon, 2022:342).

Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 (IMDT Act)

IMDT Act, 1983 was part of ‘special measures’ taken by government to tackle illegal migration problem in Assam. Statement of Objects and Reasons of IMDT Act are as follows:

a. Influx of foreigners who illegally migrated to India across borders of eastern and north-eastern regions and remained in India pose threat to integrity and security of said regions and substantial number of such foreigners who migrated into India after 25.03.1971 had, by taking advantage of circumstances of such migration and their ethnical similarity and other connections with people of India, illegally remained in India without having lawful authority to do so giving rise to serious problems.

b. Continuance of such foreigners in India was detrimental to interest of India.

Assam Governor’s Report of 1998

Despite introduction of IMDT Act and Assam Accord, problem of illegal migration into Assam could not be curbed. In 1988, Governor of Assam submitted report to President of India on grave threat posed by influx of people into Assam from Bangladesh which highlighted dangerous consequences of large scale migration for people of Assam as well as India. The report warned that such unchecked migration would reduce indigenous people of Assam to minority in their own state and their cultural survival was in jeopardy, political control weakened and employment opportunities undermined (Tandon, 2022: 305-306).

Challenge to IMDT Act: Sonowal I Judgement

In 2004, writ petition titled Sarabanda Sonowal v. Union of India was filed in Supreme Court of India questioning constitutional validity of IMDT Act and IMDT Rules. Supreme Court while striking down IMDT Act and accompanying rules, made following directions:

a. Provisions of IMDT Act were declared ultra vires and were struck down.

b. Tribunals and appellate tribunals under IMDT Act were ordered to cease functioning.

c. All cases pending before tribunals under IMDT Act would stand transferred to tribunals constituted under Foreigners Order, 1964 and would be decided in terms of Foreigners Act 1946 and Foreigners Order, 1964.

d. Government authorities were permitted to initiate fresh proceedings under Foreigners Act 1946 against persons whose cases were yet to be referred to tribunals for any reason.

e. All appeals pending in appellate tribunal under IMDT Act were directed to be abated.

f. Government was directed to constitute sufficient number of tribunals under Foreigners Order, 1964 to effectively deal with cases of foreigners who had illegally come to Assam from Bangladesh.

Foreigners (Tribunals for Assam) Order, 2006

To overcome various observations and directions of Supreme Court in Sonowal I Judgement, Foreigners (Tribunals for Assam) Order, 2006 was promulgated on 10.02.2006 (2006 Order). 2006 Order supplanted Foreigners Order, 1964 so far as Assam was concerned. Foreigners Order, 1964 was made inapplicable to Assam and replaced with 2006 Order.

Sonowal II Judgement

The 2006 Order was challenged before Supreme Court by Sarbananda Sonowal and finally Supreme Court in which is commonly known as Sonowal II Judgement struck down 2006 Order for amongst others, being arbitrary, unreasonable, adversative to principles enshrined in Assam Accord and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Supreme Court opined that it appeared that 2006 Order had been issued just as cover up for non-implementation of directions issued in Sonowal I judgement. The 2006 order was unnecessary in light of Foreigners Act, 1946 and orders made thereunder, as well as directions issued in Sonowal I Judgement. The 2006 order did not serve purpose sought to be achieved by Foreigners Act, 1946 or Citizenship Act or obligations cast on central government to protect the nation in terms of Article 355 of the Constitution of India highlighted in Sonowal I Judgement. Supreme Court lamented that conduct of government in bringing out 2006 Order exhibited lack of will in ensuring that illegal migrants were evicted from India. Supreme Court opined that government had simply refused to implement Foreigners Act, 1946 and Foreigners Order 1964 in state of Assam or comply with directions of court in Sonowal I. Supreme Court also observed that while Foreigners Act placed ‘burden of proof’ on concerned person to show that he was an Indian citizen, this legal position was sought to be significantly altered by 2006 Order, which placed burden on tribunal itself to substantiate that a given person was a foreigner. This reversal in legal position was viewed by Supreme Court as detrimental to notion of removing illegal migrants from India. No rational reason has been put forward for excluding Assam from ambit of Foreigners Act, 1946 and Foreigners Order, 1964 and supplanting it with 2006 Order. Supreme Court quashed 2006 Order and directed government to implement its directions passed in Sonowal I Judgement.

Thana Level Committee (TLC)

Government of Assam had issued notification dated 25.05.2005 for constituting TLC for purpose of avoidance of harassment to genuine Indian citizens in name of detection of foreigners. TLC was to have advisory role and keep strict vigil against rumour mongers and ensure that no genuine citizen was harassed in any way in name of suspected foreigners. Any person within thana area could submit an application to concerned officer regarding presence of illegal migrants in area. On receipt of application, officer of thana was required to examine and verify same. Police station was required to apprise TLC of action taken on application. TLC was obligated to take all steps to ensure that there was no tension or misunderstanding among different communities living within thana area relating to issue of illegal migrants. TLC was required to ensure that no person took law into his hands in matter detecting suspected illegal migrants. Guwahati High Court in State of Assam v. Jamait-E-Ulema-E-Hind (2018 (4) GLT 264) struck down above notification dated 27.05.2005 and constitution of TLC on following premise: After declaration of IMDT Act as unconstitutional, there was no scope for concept of TLC. Foreigners Act, which was applicable for whole of India including Assam, left no scope for TLC and TLC has no authority to accept or verify illegal migrants petitions.

Assam NRC Judgement (Assam Public Works v. Union of India)

In 2012, large scale riots took place in Assam which led to filing of another set of petitions in Supreme Court. In batch of petitions, Section 6A of Citizenship Act was challenged. The other prayers of the said petitions included immediate deportation of illegal migrants from Assam and from India, updating Assam NRC by taking into account NRC prepared in 1951 and taking the year 1951 as the base period for purpose of detection of illegal migrants (Judgement dated 17.12.2014 in a batch of petitions of Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Others v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 562/2012; Assam Public Works v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 274/2009 and All Assam Ahom Association & Ors. v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 876/2014). Petitioners in said petitions made slew of contentions before Supreme Court that sovereignty and integrity of India were at stake on account of influx of illegal migrants into India from neighbouring country. Influx of migrants was major cause of periodic clashes in Assam affecting law and order situation, including loss of life and property and culture of people was being eroded owing to large-scale illegal migration. Supreme Court made following set of observations:

a. Supreme Court discussed various issues highlighted in White paper dated 20.10.2012 prepared by state of Assam on foreigner’s issue to hold that very little had been done to implement promises set out in Assam Accord. The following issues were highlighted:

i. The set-up of foreign tribunals and their performance was questioned. It was noted that there was a large cumulative pendency of cases in tribunals which needed to be addressed.

ii. White Paper rued absence of proper procedure between governments of India and Bangladesh regarding deportation of illegal migrants. It was noted that deportation was being carried out through ‘push back’ method which was neither sufficient nor completely effective.

iii. The international borders with Bangladesh had not been secured. Large parts of border were still porous and required fencing.

b. On Foreigners Tribunals, Supreme Court observed that number of tribunals set up were low resulting in low number of decisions by tribunals. Even ‘push back mechanism’ was not entirely successful because ‘pushed back’ persons would not be able to re-enter on account of porous borders.

c. On porous borders, Supreme Court observed that large parts of borders were unfenced. Apart from Assam portion of border, even border with West Bengal and other north-eastern states was porous, thereby making it extremely easy to cross. The situation was contrasted with Indo-Pakistan border which was properly fenced and properly manned.

d. Supreme Court directed union and state governments to take effective and expeditious steps to check above-mentioned issues which were resulting in mass migration, including fencing of borders, creating broader roads, installation of flood lights along the border, deployment of sufficient forces for proper patrolling etc. Supreme Court also requested Guwahati High Court to expedite selection process for members of foreigner’s tribunal and also monitor functioning of tribunals.

e. On issue of deportation, Supreme Court directed union government to enter into discussions with government of Bangladesh for streamlining deportation procedure.

f. Supreme court directed government to conclude NRC in Assam in time-bound manner.

g. Supreme Court stated that issues regarding challenge to unconstitutionality of Section 6A of Citizenship Act needed to be adjudicated by five judge bench of Supreme Court.

Assam NRC

Assam NRC exercise commenced post above discussed Supreme Court judgement and has been carried out under its supervision. The entire exercise took about five years and final draft of NRC was published on 31.08.2019. About 19 lakh people have been excluded from it. Foreigners Tribunals have taken a view that NRC list of 2019 is final NRC list (State v. Bikram Singha F.T. case No. 129/2017 & Police Enquiry No. TD/3654/98 (10.09.2021, Foreigners Tribunal II, Karimganj, Assam). Young leaders such as Shri. Sarbananda Sonowal and Shri. Himanta Biswa Sarma—both of whom subsequently served as Chief Ministers in Assam—emerged as vocal proponents of firm stance against illegal immigration. Despite their strong political positioning, actual implementation of deportation measures remained limited. As of 2020, only 329 out of approximately 1.43 lakh individuals declared as foreigners by Foreigners’ Tribunals had been deported to Bangladesh.

Conclusion

Illegal migration from neighbouring countries to India presents complex challenge that demands well-calibrated, multidimensional strategy. While India’s geopolitical location and humanitarian traditions have shaped its historical openness, scale, persistence, and evolving nature of undocumented migration necessitate decisive policy and institutional reforms. Strengthening border controls through modern surveillance technologies, biometric tracking, intelligent infrastructure, enhanced inter-agency coordination, is essential to deter unauthorized crossings. Judiciary must support firm enforcement of immigration laws, distinguishing between genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants while ensuring due process and rule of law. Improving government mechanisms for identification, data integration, and deportation, as well as streamlining functioning of Foreigners Tribunals, are critical to operational efficiency. Misuse of visa categories highlight urgent need for rationalized and secure visa policies. Public awareness, political resolve, and robust diplomatic engagement are indispensable for sustainable migration governance. India’s commitment to justice and human rights must be balanced with imperatives of national security, demographic stability, and socio-economic equity. Only through comprehensive, pragmatic, and humane approach can India safeguard its sovereignty while preserving rights and dignity of individuals within its borders.

References:

Baruah, S. (2005). Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Majumder, A. (2024). India's New Right, Noida: Blueone Ink Pvt. Ltd.

Tandon, A. (2022). Indian Citizenship and Immigration Law. New Delhi: Niyogi Books.

Roy, A. (2014). Mapping Citizenship in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

https://assamaccord.assam.gov.in/portlets/assam-accord-and-its-clauses

Cases Cited:

All Assam Ahom Association & Ors. v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 876/2014)

Anil Barman v. Union of India, W.P.No. 266/2019 (10.6.2019, Guwahati High Court).

Ashma Khatun v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 8592/2018 (30.1.2019, Guwahati High Court).

Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Others v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 562/2012;

Assam Public Works v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 274/2009

Md. Samsul Haqu v. Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal, W.P. (C) No. 464/2009 (7.9.2009, Guwahati High Courtv

Sarabanda Sonowal v. Union of India, 2005 (5) SCC 665

Sarabanda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2007) 1 SCC 174

State of Assam v. Jamait-E-Ulema-E-Hind, 2018 (4) GLT 264

State v. Bikram Singha F.T. case No. 129/2017 & Police Enquiry No. TD/3654/98 (10.09.2021, Foreigners Tribunal II, Karimganj, Assam

Note: The paper was first published in Souvenir of Seemanta ’25, Assam State Convention, 2025 of Seemanta Chetana Mancha Purvottar, Assam State Committee, Guwahati, Assam