CURRENT AFFAIRS | 25 MAY 2026
By an order dated 23 May 2026, the West Bengal Home & Hill Affairs Department directed all 23 District Magistrates, Superintendents of Police, Police Commissioners, the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), and the State’s DG/IGPs to set up “holding centres” for two categories: (a) Bangladeshi nationals and Rohingya found illegally staying in the State, and (b) foreign prisoners awaiting deportation pursuant to MHA guidelines. The order foregrounds border districts and follows Union HM Amit Shah’s 20 May statement that the “infamous Diamond Harbour model has come to an end…we shall detect, delete, deport.”
The legal framework for “holding centres” rests squarely on the Foreigners Act, 1946 and is part of the Centre’s broader push that began with the first Cabinet meeting flagging illegal infiltration as a priority — and is doctrinally distinct from the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, which provides a citizenship pathway for six minority communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
Constitutional & Legal Framework
- Foreigners Act, 1946, §3 — Empowers the Central Government to make orders prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry or stay of foreigners, including expulsion.
- Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 — Entry without valid passport is an offence.
- Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939 + Rules, 1992 — Mandatory registration with FRRO.
- Citizenship Act, 1955 — §3 (birth), §6A (Assam Accord, upheld 2024), §6B (CAA, 2019).
- Article 14 + 21 — Apply to non-citizens too (Hans Muller, 1955; NHRC v. Arunachal Pradesh, 1996).
- Article 19 — Restricted to citizens; foreigners cannot invoke 19(1)(a)-(g).
- Article 355 — Union’s duty to protect States from external aggression and internal disturbance (basis of Sonowal, 2005).
- 1951 Refugee Convention & 1967 Protocol — India is NOT a signatory; principle of non-refoulement applies only as customary law.
CLAT 2027 Angle
This story sits at the intersection of migration law, federalism and human rights. The principal precedent is Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005), which struck down the IMDT Act because it imposed an unreasonable burden of proof on the State and defeated Article 355. Pair it with Mohd. Salimullah v. Union of India (2021), where the SC permitted Rohingya deportation if the “procedure established by law” was followed. Expect a Legal Reasoning passage testing whether holding centres pass the Article 21 Maneka Gandhi test of being just, fair and reasonable, and whether non-signatory status to the 1951 Refugee Convention dilutes non-refoulement.
Key Facts Table
| Order date | 23 May 2026 |
| Coverage | All 23 WB districts (border districts prioritised) |
| Issuing authority | WB Home & Hill Affairs Department |
| Legal basis | Foreigners Act, 1946, §3 |
| India & 1951 Convention | NOT a signatory |
| Refugees in India (UNHCR 2024) | ~2.4 lakh registered |
Cases: Sarbananda Sonowal v. UoI (2005), Mohd. Salimullah v. UoI (2021), NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996), Hans Muller of Nurenburg (1955), State of Arunachal v. Khudiram Chakma (1994).
Mnemonic — DETECT
- Detect (the Centre’s new posture)
- Expel — Foreigners Act, 1946, §3
- Tribunal-style process under Foreigners Tribunal Order, 1964
- Entry without papers — Passport Act, 1920
- Citizenship Act, 1955 §3, §6A, §6B
- Treaty — India NOT a signatory to 1951 Refugee Convention
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
