New Delhi: On May 2, 2025, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued a set of “secret” guidelines to various state and union territories, seeking to accelerate the verification process of “suspected Bangladeshis and Roghinyas,” supposedly residing illegally in India. This order, was not made available to the public, grants unchecked, draconian powers to state authorities – sanctioning detention and deportation of Indian citizens on grounds of mere suspicion. The Gurugram pattern: Suspicion, detention and fearBetween July 18 and 25, 2025, over 250 Bengali speaking, predominantly Muslim, migrant workers were detained and harassed in Gurugram, sparking a wave of anxiety and dismay among migrant labourers who were forced to leave for their home villages in Assam and Bengal, compromising livelihoods and uprooting the lives of their families. Although all except for 10 workers were released by the state forces, the incident marks an abhorrent breach of constitutional safeguards and rights, instilling a sense of disquiet among minorities who migrated to different states in search of employment. Over the next couple months, mass evictions, false accusations, unbridled harassment, rampant discrimination and incessant fear of deportation became commonplace in the lives of Bengali-speaking Muslim migrant workers, as the singling-out of certain demographics assumed a menacing character under the guise of law. Instances of sectarian violence and linguicism increased substantially following the MHA’s directives, especially in states like Maharashtra, Haryana, Odisha, Delhi, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh.The All India Lawyers’ Association for Justice (AILAJ), in their report titled “Detention, Deportation, Disenfranchisement: Anatomy of the MHA’s Citizenship Verification Drive,” have analysed the ‘secret’ guidelines and highlighted legal and constitutional ambiguities. Legal and constitutional concernsThe directives, empowering the district police and task forces to identify, detain and deport individuals thought to be undocumented immigrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar, lack transparency and clear evidentiary standards, with no provisions for citizen action or self-identification. They not only delineate the establishment of special forces in each district to identify alleged illegal immigrants but also ask state/UT governments to set up ‘Holding Centres’ where suspected individuals can be held for over 30 days without provisions for appeal. In case no proper verification is received within 30 days, the Foreign Registration Officer may take the necessary steps to send the individual into Bangladesh or Myanmar. Invoking the Foreigners Act, 1846 and the Citizenship Act, 1955, AILAJ reports the guidelines contain “first-of-its-kind instructions for detention of people on mere suspicion of being foreign nationals.” Additionally, the directives grant blanket adjudicatory powers to the executive without proper checks and balances, going against the principle of separation of powers– a fundamental aspect of the Indian Constitution. Moreover, the guidelines do not provide a clear basis on which suspicion is cast, the method of verification employed by the government, what documents migrants need to provide in order to prove their citizenship, or the allotment of a verification certificate to make workers immune from further investigations. AILAJ elucidates that here is a glaring lack of a right to appeal, violating the rule for fair hearing. Furthermore, no provision for compensation is mentioned in the guidelines to make up for the loss of income and livelihood during the 30-day detention period. Social and human costsOn January 25, 2026, the Migrant Solidarity Network and South Asia Solidarity Group organised a webinar to address the growing campaign of Islamophobic state terror and targeted racist violence against “Bangladeshi infiltrators”, hearing testimonies and discussing strategies of resistance and solidarity. The webinar titled “Whose Republic: Migrants Speak Out on the Demolition of Citizenship in India,” expounded on how the guidelines specifically targeted individuals who did not fit into the political imaginary of Hindu nationalism, and how an unequal distribution of development across India’s states and territories has fostered an unfair political economy of migration. The panel, moderated by Akash Bhattacharya, comprised speakers from different backgrounds – Asif Faruk (Migrant Workers’ Unity Forum), Malay Tiwari (CPI-ML West Bengal), Adv. Supantha Sinha (Migrant Solidarity Network), and Clifton D’Rozario (All-India Central Council of Trade Unions) – who spoke about various aspects of the recent spike in racial violence in India. Faruk recalled heightened violence and assault of Muslim migrant workers especially after the brutal Pahalgam terror attack in May 2025, noting the increase in extra-judicial attacks and police brutality following a pattern of racialised generalisation and hatred. He spoke of the immense racial harassment and threat faced by Bengali Muslim workers in Maharashtra wherein a couple was detained and handed over to the Siliguri border security forc e– without warning and despite having documents proving their identity – to be pushed into Bangladesh, leaving their five-year-old son behind. It was only after bilateral talks between West Bengal and Bangladesh that the couple could return and reunite with their son. He also threw light on the abominable living conditions in detention centres with multiple people living in small quarters without clean drinking water, adequate sanitation facilities, and any protection against harsh weather conditions. One of the migrant workers who shared their testimonies addressed the prevalent Islamophobic violence in Odisha, where 19-year-old Juyel Rana was beaten to death on the accusation of being a Bangladeshi. The worker, whose identity is redacted for privacy, lamented the loss of dignity and security the last few months have caused, facing daily discrimination with people accusing them of being illegal migrants merely due their religious and linguistic identity. Another migrant labourer echoed these sentiments and appealed for better checks and balances against unconstitutional and illegal directives enabling unjust detentions. Clifton D’Rozario emphasised the relevance of The Dual State: A Contribution to the Theory of Dictatorship in the current political landscape – a model in which the functioning of a state is divided into a normative and prerogative state, the latter experiencing unlimited arbitrariness and unchecked violence legitimised by legal guarantees. He added that “an increase in pressure from below” is necessary for warranting repressive and punitive political measures. Despotic guidelines and laws thrive in a society wherein a large section of the public is led to endorse and believe in theocratic and discriminatory ideologies, licensing overt subversion of law and equal rights, he said. The way forwardAILAJ has demanded the withdrawal of the MHA’s directives and condemned the detention of citizens merely on suspicion. Through their report, they have appealed to fellow democratic organisations and legal fraternity to support their campaign against attacks on citizenship. The broader ethos of citizenship – meant to serve as a source of affirmation for equal belonging – has been reduced to a tool of exclusion and scrutiny. Constant surveillance of “enemies within,” and unfair labelling of individuals as “illegal immigrants,” merely due to theocratic and linguistic prejudices, undermines the sanctity of citizenship as a status for embodying rights and dignity. Civil rights organisations like AILAJ argue that these verification drives are not isolated incidents but part of a larger attack on citizenship and democratic rights. They call for more comprehensive and unbiased frameworks to protect migrant workers and religious and linguistic minorities, ensuring transparent, fair, and rights-based legislative procedures and upholding the constitutional principles of equality and dignity. Ritvi Jain is an intern at The Wire.