Repatriation of illegal Bangladeshis is a ‘core issue’: MEA response to Dhaka’s remarks on ‘push-in’ from India

India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) described the repatriation of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants as a "core issue" in bilateral relations, calling on ...

What Happened

India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) described the repatriation of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants as a "core issue" in bilateral relations, calling on Bangladesh to expedite the verification of over 2,862 pending nationality confirmation cases, some pending for over five years.
Bangladesh placed border guards on heightened alert and issued formal diplomatic warnings against any "push-in" operations — the practice of summarily expelling individuals across the border without formal deportation proceedings — citing 2,479 documented incidents between May 2025 and January 2026.
Tensions escalated following the BJP's electoral victory in West Bengal, with statements from state authorities and Assam's Chief Minister about targeting undocumented Bangladeshi nationals for deportation.
Bangladesh's Foreign Ministry formally cautioned that it would take "appropriate action" if forced expulsions continued, while India maintained that verified illegal immigrants must be repatriated under established bilateral arrangements.
Bangladesh noted that approximately 120 of those pushed back appear to be Indian nationals, raising concerns about misidentification in summary expulsions.
The MEA also indicated that bilateral water-sharing mechanisms over 54 shared rivers, including the Teesta, continue to operate separately from the migration dispute.

Static Topic Bridges

India-Bangladesh Migration History and Bilateral Context

Bangladeshi migration to India — both documented and undocumented — is one of the oldest and most politically sensitive population movements in South Asia, spanning the 1947 Partition, the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, and decades of economic migration thereafter.

The 1971 Liberation War generated approximately 10 million refugees into India; most returned after Bangladesh's independence.
Post-1971 illegal migration has been primarily economic — driven by poverty, floods, and employment opportunities in India's border states.
Assam and West Bengal are the primary destination states, with significant political mobilisation around the issue.
India and Bangladesh share a 4,156 km land border — the fifth longest in the world — of which significant stretches remain unfenced or difficult to monitor.
Bangladesh and India signed a Land Boundary Agreement in 2015 (ratified through India's 100th Constitutional Amendment), resolving enclaves but not migration-related legal frameworks.
India's Home Ministry has previously estimated over 20 million illegal Bangladeshis in India, though independent estimates vary widely and are contested.

Connection to this news: The current escalation sits within a decades-long bilateral irritant that has intensified whenever domestic politics (Assam citizenship process, West Bengal elections) brings the issue to the fore. The MEA's framing as a "core issue" signals a shift toward assertive bilateral engagement.

The Foreigners Act, 1946 and Legal Framework for Deportation

The primary legislation governing identification and deportation of illegal immigrants in India is the Foreigners Act, 1946.

Section 2: Defines a "foreigner" as a person who is not a citizen of India — a broad definition that places the burden of proof of citizenship on the individual (not the state), as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Hans Muller of Nuremberg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail (1955).
Section 3: Empowers the Central Government to make orders regulating the entry, presence, and departure of foreigners.
Section 14: Makes remaining in India in contravention of orders a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment up to 5 years.
Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920: Companion legislation requiring valid travel documents for entry; violation is a criminal offence.
Deportation orders are issued by the Central Government (Home Ministry); states identify individuals but the formal deportation mechanism requires Central coordination and bilateral notification to the country of origin.

Connection to this news: The legal gap at the centre of the current dispute is the difference between lawful deportation under the Foreigners Act (which requires identification, documentation, and formal notification to Bangladesh) and informal "push-back" or "push-in" operations (which bypass these steps). India's Home Ministry has reportedly waived the requirement for police to formally communicate with Bangladesh before handing individuals to the BSF for push-back — a practice Bangladesh contests as unlawful.

Push-Back / Push-In Policy — Legal and Diplomatic Dimensions

"Push-back" refers to the practice by border security forces of returning individuals — often without documentation, judicial proceedings, or notification to the receiving country — across an international border. "Push-in" is Bangladesh's term for India unilaterally depositing individuals on Bangladeshi territory.

Push-back is legally distinct from formal deportation: formal deportation requires (1) identification, (2) court orders or executive orders under the Foreigners Act, (3) travel documents (or emergency travel certificates), and (4) advance notice to the receiving country.
International law basis: The 1951 Refugee Convention's non-refoulement principle prohibits returning persons to territories where they face persecution — India has not ratified the 1951 Convention, reducing this constraint.
However, customary international law and bilateral protocols require prior notification even for undocumented migrants.
The reported India-Bangladesh deportation standard operating procedure (SOP) requires Bangladesh to formally verify nationality before India deports — hence the 2,862 pending verification cases cited by MEA.
Bangladesh's documentation of 2,479 push-back incidents (May 2025–January 2026) — and its claim that ~120 are Indian nationals — has created significant diplomatic friction.

Connection to this news: The MEA's "core issue" framing and call for cooperation reflects India's position that Bangladesh must accelerate verification to enable lawful deportations, while Bangladesh's objection to push-backs targets the summary, non-notified operations that bypass bilateral protocols entirely.

BSF Act, 1968 and Border Management

The Border Security Force Act, 1968 governs the BSF, which is responsible for guarding India's international borders with Pakistan and Bangladesh.

The BSF is a Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) under the Ministry of Home Affairs — meaning border management is entirely a Central (not State) subject.
Article 246 + Union List Entry 2: "Naval, military and air forces; any other armed forces of the Union" — the BSF and border management are exclusively Central subjects.
This creates the Centre-State tension visible in the current news: West Bengal's state government (now BJP-led) and Assam's Chief Minister make political statements about deportation, but the actual border operations are controlled by the Centre through the BSF and Home Ministry.
BSF's jurisdiction was extended in 2021 from 15 km to 50 km from international borders in Punjab, Assam, and West Bengal — a move contested by affected state governments as encroachment on state police powers.
In push-back operations, BSF acts on Home Ministry directives; states cannot independently order or stop BSF operations.

Connection to this news: The apparent policy divergence between Central government statements (MEA calling for "cooperation," implying formal process) and ground-level BSF push-back operations reflects internal coordination challenges. Bangladesh's formal complaints are directed at the Central government, which controls the BSF.

Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act — Past and Current Framework

The Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 (IMDT Act) was a special Assam-specific legislation for identifying illegal migrants that was eventually struck down.

The IMDT Act was enacted specifically for Assam in 1983 following the Assam Accord (1985), placing the burden of proof on the complainant (not the accused foreigner) — the reverse of the Foreigners Act standard.
In Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005), the Supreme Court struck down the IMDT Act as unconstitutional, holding it was "the biggest hurdle and main impediment in the identification and deportation of illegal migrants." After its repeal, Assam reverted to the Foreigners Act, 1946 standard.
Foreigners Tribunals (FTs): Quasi-judicial bodies established under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, currently operative in Assam, which determine whether a person is a foreigner. Burden of proof lies on the individual to prove citizenship.
National Register of Citizens (NRC) Assam: Updated in 2019 under Supreme Court supervision; approximately 1.9 million persons were excluded. Their status continues to be adjudicated by Foreigners Tribunals.
The CAA 2019 (Citizenship Amendment Act) provides a pathway to citizenship for non-Muslim minorities from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan who entered before December 31, 2014 — but explicitly does not cover Muslims and does not address the deportation of illegal immigrants.

Connection to this news: The current push-back operations operate outside any tribunal framework — they are administrative/executive actions, not judicial determinations. Bangladesh's objection that Indian nationals may have been wrongly pushed back underlines why India's own legal framework (requiring adjudication before deportation) exists, and the risks of bypassing it.

Centre-State Dynamics on Immigration Enforcement

Immigration and border management are exclusively Central subjects, yet the political salience of illegal migration is highest at the state level — especially in border states.

Under the Seventh Schedule, "citizenship, naturalisation and aliens" is Entry 17 of the Union List — exclusively Central.
State police have powers under State Police Acts to detain suspects, but formal deportation orders and BSF operations are Central.
The resulting dynamic: state governments (Assam, West Bengal) can rhetorically escalate and direct state police to identify and detain suspected illegal immigrants, but they cannot independently deport or push back individuals — they must hand over to Central agencies.
Post-2025 West Bengal election, the new state government's stated intent to actively target undocumented Bangladeshis has heightened bilateral tensions even though actual deportation authority remains with the Centre.
The MEA's careful language ("core issue," calling for "cooperation") reflects an attempt to manage both domestic political pressure and diplomatic fallout simultaneously.

Connection to this news: The Centre-State fault line is structurally embedded in the immigration issue. The current escalation is partly a product of state-level political signalling that outpaces Central diplomatic management — a recurring pattern in India-Bangladesh relations.

Key Facts & Data

MEA stated over 2,862 nationality verification cases are pending with Bangladesh, some for over 5 years.
Bangladesh documented 2,479 push-back incidents between May 2025 and January 2026; claims ~120 may be Indian nationals.
India-Bangladesh border: 4,156 km — fifth longest international land border in the world.
Land Boundary Agreement (2015) resolved enclaves; implemented through India's 100th Constitutional Amendment.
IMDT Act, 1983 was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2005 (Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India).
Assam NRC (updated 2019): approximately 1.9 million persons excluded from citizenship list.
CAA 2019 provides citizenship pathway for non-Muslim minorities from Bangladesh/Pakistan/Afghanistan who entered before December 31, 2014.
BSF jurisdiction extended from 15 km to 50 km in Punjab, Assam, and West Bengal in 2021.
India shares 54 rivers with Bangladesh; water-sharing mechanisms continue separately from migration dispute.
Border management (BSF) is a Central subject under Union List Entry 2; states cannot independently order deportations.
India has not ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention — reducing the non-refoulement constraint on push-back operations.