Illegal migration raises legitimate concerns about demographic change, strain on public resources, and internal security, particularly in border states. The state has both the authority and the duty to regulate entry and residence within its territory. However, the enforcement of this authority must operate within constitutional limits. This is where a robust adjudicatory framework becomes indispensable.

Under the Indian Constitution, a clear distinction exists between the rights of citizens and those of non-citizens. Political rights such as voting, contesting elections, and holding public office are reserved exclusively for citizens. However, fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21— equality before law and the right to life and personal liberty—apply to all “persons.” The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that even foreigners and illegal migrants are entitled to protection against arbitrary detention, inhuman treatment, and denial of due process. These rights are not privileges; they are minimum guarantees of human dignity.

The real difficulty lies in implementation. Questions of nationality, legality of entry, detention, and deportation are often decided through executive action or poorly structured tribunals that lack consistency, expertise, and procedural safeguards. Foreigners Tribunals in Assam, for instance, have frequently been criticised for high error rates, opaque procedures, and placing unrealistic burdens of proof on individuals. In such a system, legal rights exist on paper but remain fragile in practice.

A strong tribunal system could be the missing link between sovereign power and constitutional morality. Specialised tribunals, staffed with trained judicial members and governed by uniform standards, can ensure faster and fairer adjudication of migration-related disputes. They can balance the state’s interest in border control with the individual’s right to due process. Importantly, such tribunals can reduce the burden on constitutional courts while enhancing legal certainty.

Granting basic legal rights to illegal migrants does not weaken national sovereignty. On the contrary, it strengthens the rule of law by ensuring that state power is exercised through transparent and accountable processes. When migrants are denied access to courts or legal remedies, they are pushed into invisibility, making them vulnerable to exploitation, trafficking, and abuse. This shadow existence creates parallel economies and security risks that ultimately harm the state itself.

Critics argue that recognising legal rights may encourage illegal migration. This fear, however, confuses humane treatment with political entitlement. Legal rights do not imply a right to settle permanently or to acquire citizenship. Deportation, where justified, can and should proceed— but only through fair procedures. A rights-based approach ensures that mistakes are minimised and that innocent individuals are not wrongfully deprived of liberty or nationality.

India’s reform narrative has long emphasised efficiency and speed. But justice cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative convenience. Without institutional reform in tribunals, decisions affecting lives and identities risk becoming arbitrary. A credible tribunal system would bring predictability, transparency, and legitimacy to state action in sensitive areas like migration.

Ultimately, the question is not whether illegal migrants deserve the same rights as citizens— they do not. The real issue is whether India’s legal system can uphold basic human dignity while enforcing immigration law. A strong tribunal system offers the answer. It allows the state to be firm without being unfair, lawful without being inhumane.

As India seeks to project itself as a constitutional democracy committed to the rule of law, strengthening tribunals is no longer optional. It is the missing piece in India’s reform story— one that will determine how justice is delivered, especially to those at the margins of legality and belonging.