The Karnataka High Court has quashed two FIRs registered against Bengaluru-based doctor and social worker Nagendrappa T., who had alerted authorities about suspected illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. The Court found that the circumstances surrounding one of the complaints prima facie indicated retaliation against the petitioner for bringing the alleged unauthorised stay to the notice of the authorities.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna also directed the Karnataka government to ensure the constitution and operationalisation of district-level committees for dealing with illegal immigration in accordance with the prescribed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), within three months.
The proceedings arose from two criminal cases registered at Bellanduru and Varthur police stations. The petitioner challenged the FIRs and also sought relief concerning his arrest and alleged deprivation of personal liberty.
The Court noted that the investigating officer had recommended the complainant’s detention to the FRRO at 11:30 a.m. on July 22, 2026, over her alleged unauthorised stay in India. Barely 15 minutes later, she lodged an assault and criminal intimidation complaint against the petitioner at Bellanduru Police Station, despite the officer having recorded no injuries at the time, raising concerns that the complaint was a retaliatory response to the petitioner’s report.
The Court further questioned the speed with which the police acted on the complaint, noting that the petitioner was taken into custody and released the following day. The Court also noted the absence of material indicating an injury in the complaint and questioned why the criminal case had been registered without medical examination or contemporaneous material disclosing injury. The court observed:
“
“What disturbs the conscience of this Court is not merely the registration of an FIR, but the extraordinary sequence in which the criminal process appears to have been invoked. Criminal law is undoubtedly available to every person within the territory of India for redress against an offence; immigration status, by itself, cannot denude a person of the protection of law. Equally, however, the criminal justice system cannot be permitted to become an instrument of retaliation against a person who brings an allegedly unlawful stay to the notice of the authorities. On the facts obtaining in the case at hand, the chronology bears a pronounced imprint of retaliation and warrants scrutiny through the prism of abuse of process.”
Court Directs Karnataka To Operationalise District-Level Committees
Beyond quashing the criminal proceedings, the Court examined the State’s implementation of the SOP governing cases of illegal immigration. It noted that the material before it did not satisfactorily establish whether district-level committees had been constituted and were functioning throughout Karnataka.
“
“An executive protocol without an operational institutional mechanism is a promise without performance; a law without implementation is little more than an illusion of governance,” the Court remarked.
It further stated that the committees contemplated under the SOP must not remain merely on paper, and that allegations of unauthorised immigration must be addressed promptly, uniformly and strictly in accordance with law. The Court clarified that action against persons found to be residing in India without lawful authority must follow the applicable statutory and executive framework. At the same time, it cautioned against indiscriminate action.
“
“Neither administrative apathy nor indiscriminate action can be countenanced. Persons found to be staying in India without lawful authority must be dealt with under the applicable statutory and executive framework; equally, no person can be deprived of the protection of law merely on account of nationality or immigration status,” the Court held.
In a wider observation on the issue, the Court said that illegal immigration raises concerns extending beyond violations of entry and residence laws, including national sovereignty, border integrity and internal security.
“
“The State cannot afford to be indifferent to unlawful immigration, for indifference today may become an institutional vulnerability tomorrow. Illegal immigration must be addressed with firmness. It is precisely to secure this balance that the Standard Operating Procedure must be implemented in letter and spirit, lest an issue requiring orderly legal administration become a recurring source of public discord,” the court observed.
The Court warned that failure to demonstrate compliance with the SOP could invite further directions, observing that an executive protocol framed to address such a consequential issue could not be allowed to remain a paper prescription.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the two FIRs against petitioner and directed the Karnataka government to ensure that district-level committees are constituted and made functional in all districts where required under the SOP, within three months of receiving a copy of the order. The State must subsequently submit a comprehensive district-wise compliance report detailing the committees’ constitution, composition and operational status.