The Diplomat: South Asia: Friday,
December 19, 2025.
The ministry has often resorted to knee-jerk reactions while tackling illegal immigration, best evidenced by its policies in Assam.
Strange as it may
seem, the Indian government does not have data on the number of foreign
nationals from neighbouring countries who are overstaying in the country after
their visas have expired.
In reply to an application under the Right to Information Act (RTI) seeking details about foreign nationals who have not returned to their countries after expiry of their visas, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said that “data of such illegal immigrants/students from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Maldives who have not returned to their countries after expiration of their visas between 2020-24 is not centrally available.”
Furthermore, the ministry, in its typical style of passing the buck, pointed out that the power to detect, restrict movement, and deport illegal immigrants has been delegated under existing laws to state governments and union territories.
“Hence, you may seek information directly from state governments/union territories,” the reply added.
The RTI application was sent by this correspondent in the backdrop of widespread rumors that many foreign nationals, especially from Bangladesh, have not returned to their countries after the expiry of their visas. On August 27, a special flight from Pune ferried 27 Bangladeshi nationals, who were found overstaying in the country, to West Bengal. They were deported to Bangladesh through the border.
Earlier, Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal stated that there were a large number of Bangladeshi citizens staying illegally in India, who were required to be deported. More serious has been the case of illegal immigrants in Assam who have vanished and evaded deportation after being convicted by the Foreigners’ Tribunals. The Assam government has claimed before the Supreme Court that 70,000 foreign nationals are untraceable.
That a wide and efficient network of touts facilitates illegal immigration into India is not in doubt. The network also provides the immigrants with Aadhar and other documents, helping them settle safely across the country. This makes the task of detection for the police incredibly difficult. As such, the government’s inability to arrive at a precise figure about illegal immigrants in the country can be understood.
However, the government’s ignorance about the total number of foreign nationals who are overstaying in the country after expiry of their visas is unreasonable since the records are well-documented.
Former government officials engaged with security agencies have expressed diverse views on the home ministry’s reply to the RTI application.
Pallab Bhattacharya, former chief of Assam Police’s Special Branch, told The Diplomat that the home ministry’s reply represents a “tactical use of procedural formalism” to avoid substantive disclosure.
“The larger policy implication is troubling: If the Central Government genuinely lacks centralized data on visa overstayers despite statutory registration requirements and electronic tracking systems, it represents a serious failure in immigration monitoring a matter of national security concern far beyond this individual RTI application,” he said.
Bhattacharya added that the reply has several inconsistencies.
“The MHA issued detailed instructions in May 2025 to all State Governments and union territories, setting 30-day deadlines for verification and deportation of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar. These instructions require states to maintain records and share reports with the Centre on the 15th of every month. The Bureau of Immigration has been asked to publish lists of deportees on public portals and share data with UIDAI (Unique Identification Authority of India), the Election Commission and the MEA (Ministry of External Affairs). The question is, if MHA is collecting monthly reports from states since May 2025, how can it claim in December 2025 that centralized data is unavailable?”
Another official who had served with a central security agency five years ago expressed the opinion that the ministry is reluctant to share information for two reasons.
“First, it could mean diversion of resources and spending time to draw up a list from which there is no gain. And secondly, the ministry knows that several provisions provide a shield against sharing all kinds of information, even if they are not sensitive,” he claimed.
The ministry has often resorted to knee-jerk reactions while tackling illegal immigration, best evidenced by its policies in Assam. Last May, an Assamese Muslim woman, Sakina Begum, was deported to Bangladesh after being declared a foreigner by a Foreigner Tribunal (FT) in October 2012 and interned in a detention camp till her release on bail as per an order of the Supreme Court in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.
In 2021, the MHA issued a controversial directive to the National Register of Citizens (NRC) Secretariat in Assam to issue ‘rejection slips’ to people delisted from the register. The order did not conform to the laws and procedures laid down for the completion of the exercise.
These incidents indicate the confusion that prevails in the ministry on certain issues and regions of the country. The muddle is the result of several anomalies, including the lack of long-term planning.
The ministry has often resorted to knee-jerk reactions while tackling illegal immigration, best evidenced by its policies in Assam.
 |
North Block which houses India’s Ministry of Home Affairs, in New Delhi, India. |
In reply to an application under the Right to Information Act (RTI) seeking details about foreign nationals who have not returned to their countries after expiry of their visas, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said that “data of such illegal immigrants/students from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Maldives who have not returned to their countries after expiration of their visas between 2020-24 is not centrally available.”
Furthermore, the ministry, in its typical style of passing the buck, pointed out that the power to detect, restrict movement, and deport illegal immigrants has been delegated under existing laws to state governments and union territories.
“Hence, you may seek information directly from state governments/union territories,” the reply added.
The RTI application was sent by this correspondent in the backdrop of widespread rumors that many foreign nationals, especially from Bangladesh, have not returned to their countries after the expiry of their visas. On August 27, a special flight from Pune ferried 27 Bangladeshi nationals, who were found overstaying in the country, to West Bengal. They were deported to Bangladesh through the border.
Earlier, Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal stated that there were a large number of Bangladeshi citizens staying illegally in India, who were required to be deported. More serious has been the case of illegal immigrants in Assam who have vanished and evaded deportation after being convicted by the Foreigners’ Tribunals. The Assam government has claimed before the Supreme Court that 70,000 foreign nationals are untraceable.
That a wide and efficient network of touts facilitates illegal immigration into India is not in doubt. The network also provides the immigrants with Aadhar and other documents, helping them settle safely across the country. This makes the task of detection for the police incredibly difficult. As such, the government’s inability to arrive at a precise figure about illegal immigrants in the country can be understood.
However, the government’s ignorance about the total number of foreign nationals who are overstaying in the country after expiry of their visas is unreasonable since the records are well-documented.
Former government officials engaged with security agencies have expressed diverse views on the home ministry’s reply to the RTI application.
Pallab Bhattacharya, former chief of Assam Police’s Special Branch, told The Diplomat that the home ministry’s reply represents a “tactical use of procedural formalism” to avoid substantive disclosure.
“The larger policy implication is troubling: If the Central Government genuinely lacks centralized data on visa overstayers despite statutory registration requirements and electronic tracking systems, it represents a serious failure in immigration monitoring a matter of national security concern far beyond this individual RTI application,” he said.
Bhattacharya added that the reply has several inconsistencies.
“The MHA issued detailed instructions in May 2025 to all State Governments and union territories, setting 30-day deadlines for verification and deportation of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar. These instructions require states to maintain records and share reports with the Centre on the 15th of every month. The Bureau of Immigration has been asked to publish lists of deportees on public portals and share data with UIDAI (Unique Identification Authority of India), the Election Commission and the MEA (Ministry of External Affairs). The question is, if MHA is collecting monthly reports from states since May 2025, how can it claim in December 2025 that centralized data is unavailable?”
Another official who had served with a central security agency five years ago expressed the opinion that the ministry is reluctant to share information for two reasons.
“First, it could mean diversion of resources and spending time to draw up a list from which there is no gain. And secondly, the ministry knows that several provisions provide a shield against sharing all kinds of information, even if they are not sensitive,” he claimed.
The ministry has often resorted to knee-jerk reactions while tackling illegal immigration, best evidenced by its policies in Assam. Last May, an Assamese Muslim woman, Sakina Begum, was deported to Bangladesh after being declared a foreigner by a Foreigner Tribunal (FT) in October 2012 and interned in a detention camp till her release on bail as per an order of the Supreme Court in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.
In 2021, the MHA issued a controversial directive to the National Register of Citizens (NRC) Secretariat in Assam to issue ‘rejection slips’ to people delisted from the register. The order did not conform to the laws and procedures laid down for the completion of the exercise.
These incidents indicate the confusion that prevails in the ministry on certain issues and regions of the country. The muddle is the result of several anomalies, including the lack of long-term planning.
.JPG)
.JPG)
