Deportation sans law: Collective expulsion and non-refoulement – Part 2
Second part of the five-part series examining the forcible expulsion of Indian citizens to Bangladesh based on unverified suspicions of illegal migration, conducted without due process
South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre
7 February 2026
AT LEAST 300 of those expelled are from the state of Assam, which, in 2019, underwent a contentious citizenship verification process that was arbitrary, flawed and excluded nearly two million people.
Expulsion and non-refoulement
The Citizenship Act, 1955 and associated rules provide that official documents such as land records and electoral rolls may be relevant in establishing citizenship. Determination of foreigner status lies with civil courts, foreigners tribunals, and duly constituted administrative authorities under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and related legislation.
Border Security Force (BSF) has no statutory competence to unilaterally declare someone a foreigner or to expel them from Indian territory. When BSF summarily removes individuals across borders, it bypasses institutions designed to adjudicate citizenship disputes.
The Constitution of India contains provisions on the status of international law in India under the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution which provide that the state shall endeavor to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized people with one another. It is well established in India that the principle of customary international law can be enforced by the courts if they are not in conflict with the statutes.
The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights reported that the authorities forced 40 Rohingya refugees into the sea near Myanmar, giving them life jackets and making them swim to shore.
While India is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, general principles of non-refoulement and the prohibition on collective expulsion are recognized in customary international law and international human rights instruments. The European Court of Human Rights has held in Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy (2012) that Italy violated the prohibition on collective expulsion and non-refoulement by intercepting migrants at sea and returning them to Libya without individualized assessment or remedy. In Čonka v Belgium (2002), the Court found that the summary expulsion of a Roma family without effective remedy violated Article 5 (liberty), Article 13 (effective remedy) and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4. Pushing individuals, including pregnant women, into foreign territory without status determination violates these principles and exposes victims to destitution, criminalization in the receiving country, and risk to life.
Indian authorities have expelled about 100 Rohingya refugees from a detention center in Assam across the Bangladesh border. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) reported that the authorities forced another 40 Rohingya refugees into the sea near Myanmar, giving them life jackets and making them swim to shore in what the UN special rapporteur on Myanmar, Tom Andrews, called “an affront to human decency.” Others cite higher figures.
India is obligated under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) to ensure the protection of everyone's rights and to prevent deprivation of citizenship on the basis of race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin.