Delhi HC Dismisses Mandamus Petition Seeking Deportation of Alleged Illegal Migrants From Yamuna Localities

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav refused to issue a writ of mandamus where the petitioner furnished no identity particulars or prima facie material to substantiate allegations of illegal migrants in Delhi.

The High Court of Delhi on 22 July 2026 dismissed a criminal writ petition filed by M.A. Burney seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus requiring the Union of India and other respondents to deport illegal migrants allegedly residing along the Yamuna River near Kalindi Kunj, Batla House, Shaheen Bagh, Shram Vihar, Taimur Nagar, and Majnu Ka Tila. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, sitting singly, found the petition bereft of merit. The petitioner had not filed any formal complaint with the police, had not named or identified any alleged illegal migrant, and had furnished no list or particulars to enable verification. Police inquiries conducted in the area had also returned no material corroborating the allegations. The court declined to direct a “fishing and roving enquiry” on the basis of sweeping, unsubstantiated assertions.

The Petition and the Relief Sought

M.A. Burney filed W.P.(CRL) 2496/2024 seeking two principal reliefs. First, a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to deport illegal migrants from Bangladesh, Rohingya communities, and other countries allegedly living on the banks of the Yamuna at the locations listed in the petition, on the ground that their presence posed a threat to national sovereignty and that they were involved in illegal activities. The petition also sought action against local residents alleged to be sheltering such migrants, named as respondent Nos. 3 to 6, and police protection for the petitioner himself.

The petitioner did not appear through counsel on the date of the order. Respondents were represented by Mr. Rahul Tyagi, Additional Standing Counsel for the State, Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, Central Government Standing Counsel, Mr. Arnav Mittal, Government Pleader, Mr. Nipun Jain, Advocates, and M. Hasibuddin, Advocate for the private respondents.

What the Police and Respondents Reported

The respondents placed a status report before the court. It disclosed that the petitioner had never lodged a formal complaint regarding illegal migrants at PS Sarita Vihar. A local inquiry was conducted by the police, during which no instance of illegal migrants residing in the area came to light. The petitioner had also not furnished any list or particulars of persons suspected to be illegal immigrants, which the respondents said made it impossible for the authorities to undertake any verification.

The status report also placed before the court a record of earlier petitions filed by the same petitioner, all of which had been disposed of. These included two contempt cases, two civil writ petitions, one criminal writ petition, and a contempt petition filed through a news organisation, all against the Union of India, State of NCT of Delhi, and other authorities. The respondents characterised these petitions as having been filed without substance and dismissed.

The court also noted that the petitioner carried a long criminal record. Seven FIRs were registered against him at Police Stations Sarita Vihar and Hazrat Nizamuddin, South East Delhi, spanning the years 2007 to 2021. The offences included Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC; 186, 353, 332, 506, 356, 34 IPC; 323, 342, 34 IPC; Section 466A of the DMC Act; 365, 323, 34 IPC; 376, 328, 506, 376D, 34 IPC; and 354C, 384, 376, 34 IPC.

The Legal Framework the Court Applied

Justice Kaurav drew on three precedents to frame the legal position.

The Supreme Court in Mohammad Ismail v. Union of India (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2938), while dealing with a petition concerning the deportation of Rohingyas, had observed that courts are difficult to persuade by allegations unsupported by any prima facie material. Mere vague, evasive, and sweeping averments without supporting material cannot constitute a valid basis for relief, and the court cannot undertake a roving inquiry unless allegations are substantiated by cogent prima facie evidence.

The Calcutta High Court in Bhodu Sekh v. Union of India & Ors., decided on 26 September 2025 in WPA (H) 50 of 2025, addressed a similar deportation petition and held that the question of citizenship must be considered on the basis of documents and evidence before an appropriate court. It found that Aadhaar cards, PAN cards, and voter identity cards are not proof of citizenship, and that the procedure laid down in a circular dated 2 May 2025 regarding Bangladeshi and Rohingya Muslim deportees had to be followed by the authorities. Departing from that procedure in haste was held to render the deportation order bad in law.

In Qadir Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., decided on 24 September 2025 in W.P.(Crl.) 3128/2025, the court held that deportation of a foreign national falls within the exclusive domain of the executive and the scope of judicial review is necessarily limited to ensuring that such action is carried out in accordance with law and fair procedure. Courts cannot create or recognise a right where none exists under law.

Why the Court Refused Mandamus

Applying these principles, Justice Kaurav found that the reliefs sought rested entirely on sweeping and omnibus allegations. The petitioner had neither disclosed the identity of any alleged illegal migrant nor furnished credible or prima facie material. The police inquiry had produced no corroborating material. In the absence of any specific factual foundation, the court held that it could not issue a writ of mandamus to the authorities.

The court went further to address the nature of the direction the petitioner was effectively asking for. Issuing a writ requiring the respondents to identify and deport alleged illegal migrants on vague and unsubstantiated allegations would, the court said, amount to directing a fishing and roving inquiry, which falls outside the permissible scope of writ jurisdiction.

The judgment did not treat deportation as an impermissible executive action in principle. The precedents cited make clear that identification and deportation are executive functions amenable only to limited judicial scrutiny for procedural compliance. The court's refusal turned entirely on the absence of any factual foundation that could justify even the threshold for invoking that scrutiny.

Outcome

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav dismissed W.P.(CRL) 2496/2024 on 22 July 2026, finding it bereft of any merit. All pending applications, if any, were disposed of simultaneously.