The Supreme Court of India, on October 6, 2025, has drawn sharp criticism over the growing number of foreigners who overstay their visas, stating that “this country has become a haven for all kinds of people” who “come and stay here endlessly.” The remarks were made while the Court dismissed a petition filed by an Israeli national, Dror Shalom Goldstein, seeking to prevent the deportation of his two minor daughters, who had been living in Goa alongside his Russian partner. While the partner and her minor son from another relationship were flown back to Russia on 28th September, 2025.
The Court questioned how the petitioner sustained himself in India, challenged his paternal claims, and ultimately allowed him to withdraw his plea as “frivolous.” The case surfaced in July 2025, after local authorities rescued a Russian woman, Nina Kutina, 40 years old, and her two minor daughters, aged six and five, in the Ramatirtha Hills forest in Gokarna, Kumta taluk, Karnataka, where they had reportedly been living under a cave without valid travel or residence documents for weeks.
The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, used the case to call attention to a larger systemic issue: the challenge of identifying, monitoring, and deporting foreigners who remain in India beyond their legal stay. In another instance, the Court cautioned against entertaining petitions from foreigners overstaying in India, noting that “lakhs and lakhs are sitting here, overstaying.”
The Court also addressed a similar separate case, where a petition from a Sudanese national, questioning the viability of his stay in India after he applied for asylum. It highlighted that India does not formally recognize UNHCR refugee cards under domestic law.
India does not have a dedicated law on refugees. Instead, foreign nationals and overstayers are regulated through the Foreigners Act, 1946, and associated Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950 (though the Foreigners Act was recently repealed as part of the new Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025). Under the prior regime, an individual who enters without appropriate documents or remains beyond the authorized time is liable for deportation.
The Centre has repeatedly told the Supreme Court that it cannot provide accurate figures on the number of illegal immigrants, since such entries are clandestine and difficult to detect. According to its affidavit filed in December 2023, the government noted that between 2017 and 2022, 14,346 foreign nationals were deported. The affidavit also said that 3.34 lakh cases have been disposed of by Foreigners’ Tribunals in Assam, with 97,714 pending cases as of October 2023.
Supreme Court registries have, in past hearings, directed the government to submit data on border fencing, measures against illegal influx, and deportation timelines, particularly in the northeastern region.
In Assam, the Court has also criticized the indefinite detention of declared foreigners, demanding that the Union follow its guidelines, which require deportation within 30 days after conviction under the Foreigners Act.
Several factors contribute to illegal stays:
Reluctance or inability to leave due to personal, financial or security reasons: Some individuals enter legally (for tourism, education, or spiritual purposes) but fail to renew visas or leave when required.
Lack of a strict monitoring mechanism: Visa extensions, tracking, and periodic checks are less uniform, especially outside major cities.
Absence of refugee-law clarity: Since India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, there is no formal domestic scheme distinguishing refugees from illegal immigrants.
Document forgery, identity syndicates: Some overstayers obtain forged documents, misuse local networks, or benefit from weak verification systems. (For instance, in Delhi, there have been operations detecting undocumented migrants who held forged Aadhaar or voter IDs.)
Delay or refusal of destination country acceptance: Deportation sometimes fails because the foreigner’s country of origin refuses to accept them, leaving them in legal limbo.
The Supreme Court’s strong language signals growing judicial impatience with the status quo. It underscores the need for more rigorous systems for foreigners registration, periodic surveillance, cooperation with foreign governments, and robust deportation mechanisms.
But change will require administrative commitment. The government must ensure that detention centers meet humane standards, speed up tribunals, and ensure that diplomatic channels accept returns. The judiciary’s recent interventions, while symbolic, will only yield results if backed by sustained executive action.
India’s challenge now is to balance its humanitarian obligations with sovereignty and rule of law — ensuring that visitors who abide by visa laws are welcome, while those who flout them are held accountable.
(Rh/MY/NS)
Suggested Reading:
