The concept of federalism thrives on mutual respect between the union government and state governments of a country, even in a ‘Quasi-Federal State’ like the Indian Republic. The recent directive of May 2025 issued by the Union government to the States regarding the “procedure for deportation of illegal Bangladeshi nationals/Rohingyas” has raised serious questions concerning the heterogeneous nature of Indian federalism.This directive has, in effect, conferred license upon the state administration and police, particularly in the eastern border states with a larger migrant population from Bangladesh, to “detect, identify, and deport/send back” not only alleged undocumented immigrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar but also ethnic Bengali-speaking Indian Muslims, in a brutal, opaque, and illegal manner.In the garb of curbing undocumented immigration, the BJP-led central government has, in fact, been able to achieve its divisive and communal agenda by cracking down on the ethnic Bengali Indian Muslim population by unleashing terror in detaining and then deporting them to Bangladesh, without adherence to any national or international human rights safeguards, rights or guarantees.It emerges that the Union government has issued special directions to the chief secretaries of all states and Union territory administrations, as well as to border security forces such as the director general, BSF, Assam Rifles, and Coast Guard, to deport undocumented immigrants through the international borders with Bangladesh and Myanmar. These directions specifically require the agencies to deport “illegal immigrants”.On the contrary, while exercising the power, certain state governments have conveniently replaced the term “illegal immigrants” with “suspected illegal immigrants” and have begun detaining and deporting Bengali-speaking migrants to Bangladesh, including women and children, even though the Foreigners Tribunal is the fora entrusted with determining the citizenship of an individual under the Foreigners Act.This unbridled power in the hands of an executive in the pursuit of a divisive communal agenda aims at dismantling the heterogeneity and diversity of the Indian state. Pursuant to the purported directions issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the country is witnessing the largest illegal deportation in history, of its own citizens, along with “suspected foreigners.” So far, the state governments have deported more than 1,000 people to Bangladesh under the guise of directions of the MHA.The power to arrest or detain a foreignerIt is not in dispute that the Union Government has the power to deport foreign nationals who are residing in the country without valid documents, as enumerated in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and those who fall within the definition under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, which defines a “foreigner” as a person who is not a citizen of India.However, neither the Citizenship Act nor the Foreigners Act defines the term ‘suspected foreigner/immigrant’, which is the core issue in the ongoing illegal deportation drive based on ethnicity and language. Clause (g) of Subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Foreigners Act empowers the central government to make orders for prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry of foreigners into the country and their departure therefrom, along with the power to arrest and detain or confine the determined foreigner. Nevertheless, the determination of an individual’s status as a foreigner or not is a condition precedent for acting on the same.Arbitrary detention without informing the groundsIt is pertinent to mention that, at the time of arrest or detention of Bengali-speaking individuals, the police have failed to follow the procedure established by law, thereby rendering such detention arbitrary and illegal.In most cases, Bengali-speaking migrant labourers were picked up from their bastis or workplaces without disclosure of the grounds of arrest or detention, as mandated by the Supreme Court in various decisions.Article 22(1) of the Constitution bars any form of detention without informing the detenue of the grounds of such detention, and any deviation from this mandate is contrary to constitutional principles. Article 22 (1) clearly states that,…”1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.”In Vihaan Kumar v. Under State of Haryana & Anr., the Supreme Court reiterated that the arrest/detention without informing the grounds is contrary to the law. Herein, the ground of detention would be more dangerous, when it was solely based on the language spoken by the detainee and that too one of the languages included in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Such illegal arrests and detentions are a violation of Article 21 rights, available to all persons residing in India, citizen or otherwise.Authorities cannot randomly ask people to prove citizenshipMore recently, in an important decision, the Supreme Court held that the authorities cannot randomly ask people to prove Indian Citizenship on mere suspicion without sharing any material grounds. The court also held,that under the garb of and by taking recourse to Section 9 of the Citizenship Act [wherein the onus to prove citizenship is on the individual], the authority, or for that matter, the Tribunal, cannot give a go-by to the settled principles of natural justice.In Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim vs The State Of Assam, 2024 the apex court held that,…”the question is that does Section 9 of the Act empower the Executive to pick a person at random, knock at his/her/their door, tell him/her/they/them ‘We suspect you of being a foreigner.’, and then rest easy basis Section 9?”…”What materials or information had come to his knowledge or possession that warranted his direction? Obviously, the State cannot proceed in such manner. Neither can we as a Court countenance such approach.”The division bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah further held that, “ For avoidance of doubt, we may restate that this does not imply that strict proof of such allegation has to be given to the accused person but the material on which such allegation is founded has to be shared with the person. For obvious reasons and as pointed out hereinbefore, at this stage, the question of the evidentiary nature of the material and/or its authenticity is not required. However, under the garb of and by taking recourse to Section 9 of the Act, the authority, or for that matter, the Tribunal, cannot give a go-by to the settled principles of natural justice. Audi alteram partem does not merely envisage a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard. In our opinion, it would encompass within itself the obligation to share material collected with the person/accused concerned. It is no longer res integra that principles of natural justice need to be observed even if the statute is silent on that aspect”.The Constitution as a mute spectatorThe founding fathers of the Republic could never have anticipated that a day would come when people would be pushed back to a neighbouring country merely because they share the same language across the border. Despite the explicit constitutional prohibition under Article 15(1) against discrimination on the grounds of place of birth, the state governments have, in practice, subjected a section of its own citizens to hostile treatment on the basis of language and place of birth.Such executive action amounts to an arbitrary and unconstitutional classification. Moreover, since the onus to prove citizenship falls on the person subjected to scrutiny, it creates additional hardship for migrant labourers who live with limited documentation in another State.There is no doubt that the present deportation of citizens to a foreign country constitutes a complete violation of our constitutional morality. It is further a dangerous arsenal to dismantle the equilibrium of federalism.The unity and integrity of the nation are one of the primary elements of basic structure, which was laid down by the Hon’ble Court in Kesavananda Bharati and cannot be damaged or abrogated even by a constitutional amendment that may be passed under Article 368. However, such executive orders that target citizens on the basis of language could become the catacomb of constitutional principles, upheld by the country for the past 78 years.The author is an advocate practising before the Supreme Court.