BJP's 2025 Law and Supreme Court Clamp Down on Refugee Abuse

In a decisive stance on the country’s refugee and foreigner policy, the Supreme Court of India has delivered two key judgments this May—one involving Rohingya deportation and the other concerning the settlement plea of a Sri Lankan Tamil national. These verdicts reflect a growing judicial consensus: India is not a dharamshala for the world’s displaced, especially when national resources and security are at stake.

Judgment 1: Rohingya Deportation — Citizenship Has Legal Limits

Date: May 8, 2025
Bench: Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and N. Kotiswar Singh

In response to a writ petition alleging that 43 Rohingya individuals—many with serious medical conditions—were deported after being thrown into international waters, the Supreme Court expressed disbelief and reserved strong comments on the repetitive nature of such Public Interest Litigations.

Key Takeaways:

1. Residency Rights Are for Citizens: Article 19(1)(e), which allows residence and settlement, applies only to Indian citizens.

2. Foreigners Act Governs Refugees: The Court reiterated that all undocumented migrants, including Rohingyas, are governed by the Foreigners Act, 1946.

3. Non-Refoulement Is Not Binding on India: While international law discourages sending refugees back to countries where they face persecution, India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, and thus not bound by it.

4. Due Process Will Be Followed: Deportation must follow verification and procedure, but is legally valid.

The case has been posted for further hearing on July 31, 2025.

Judgment 2: No Sanctuary for Convicted Sri Lankan Tamil

Date: May 19, 2025
Bench: Division Bench of the Supreme Court

A Sri Lankan Tamil man, convicted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and having served a seven-year jail term, sought to remain in India. The Court denied this request outright.

Notable Observations:

1. India Cannot Be a Dharamshala: The Court clearly stated that with a population of 1.4 billion, India cannot become a shelter for all foreign nationals.

2. Security and Order First: Especially for individuals convicted under serious charges, there is no right to stay in the country post-sentence.

3. No Right to Settle Without Citizenship: Foreigners—even those who have lived in India for extended periods—cannot claim residency rights without legal entitlement.

The Broader Issue: Why Aren’t Most Refugees Deported?

Despite these judgments, the ground reality remains that a large number of illegal immigrants and refugees continue to stay in India. Deportations are few and selective. Here's why:

1. No Bilateral Acceptance

Countries like Myanmar or Bangladesh often delay or reject the return of their citizens, making deportation difficult.

2. No Formal Refugee Law in India

India hasn’t signed the 1951 Refugee Convention and lacked a codified refugee framework—until recently.

3. Human Rights and Judicial Stays

Even non-citizens are protected by Article 21 (right to life). Courts often intervene if deportation risks their life or dignity.

4. UNHCR and Diplomatic Pressure

UNHCR’s involvement in granting refugee status complicates matters, even though India is not obliged to follow its directives.

5. Administrative and Political Inertia

Deportations involve verification, travel, coordination—often delayed due to political unwillingness or bureaucratic red tape.

6. Vote Bank Politics

In some regions, leniency toward refugee populations translates into electoral calculations, making harsh actions politically sensitive.

7. Corruption in Local Administration

One of the most critical but under-discussed reasons is local-level corruption. Illegal immigrants often pay a few thousand rupees in bribes to acquire Aadhaar cards, voter IDs, ration cards, and even job cards—creating the false impression that they are Indian citizens. This makes tracking and deporting them much harder and enables them to illegally access subsidies, government schemes, and voting rights meant exclusively for Indian citizens.

A Political Shift: BJP Government's Push for Immigration Control

These changes in the legal landscape align with the broader immigration policy shift under the BJP government. In 2025, the government introduced and passed a comprehensive Immigration Control and National Security Law, aiming to:

1. Streamline the deportation process of illegal migrants.

2. Tighten border surveillance and prevent future infiltrations.

3. Protect Indian tax-payers’ money, ensuring that subsidies and welfare schemes are used for Indian citizens, especially the poor.

4. Establish national guidelines for dealing with foreign nationals, separating legitimate refugees from illegal infiltrators.

This marks a watershed moment in India's internal security and demographic policy. The BJP's approach prioritizes national interest, economic prudence, and citizen welfare over undefined and unchecked hospitality.

Why Deportation Is a Welcome Move

As the Court rightfully noted, India’s resources are not infinite, and the welfare system is already under pressure:

1. Refugees often access ration subsidies, health care, education, and sometimes even voting rights through forged documents.

2. Public housing and low-wage jobs are impacted, causing resentment among the economically weaker Indian citizens.

3. National security risks arise, particularly in border states and communally sensitive areas.

Deportation, when done lawfully and humanely, safeguards national sovereignty and protects the interests of India’s poor and tax-paying citizens.

Final Reflection:

These judgments mark a firm and timely reminder that citizenship is not just a moral, but also a legal construct. While humanitarian concerns matter, they cannot override the national interest, demographic balance, and protection of public resources.

Final Reflection: Questions for India’s Future remains:

1. Can India now ensure strict and uniform enforcement of its immigration law across all states, without local political interference?

2. How can public resources and welfare schemes be digitally protected so that only verified Indian citizens receive the benefits?

3. Should India now define a clear legal category for refugees, distinct from illegal migrants, balancing national security with humanitarian care?

4. What impact will large-scale deportations have on internal job markets, border relations, and foreign diplomacy—especially with neighboring nations?

5. Can the judiciary maintain a consistent stand that prioritizes national interest while safeguarding basic rights of foreign detainees awaiting deportation?

6. Can India now ensure the effective implementation of its new immigration law to balance compassion with control, and sovereignty with responsibility?