'Stop appeasing illegal immigrants': Karnataka HC questions FIR against man who reported illegal immigrants

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday came down heavily on the State police and the Home Department over the manner in which two criminal cases were registered against a doctor-activist who had allegedly helped the police identify illegal Bangladeshi immigrants residing in Bengaluru.

Justice M Nagaprasanna stayed further investigation in two criminal cases against the petitioner, Dr Nagendra.

The judge also questioned the State's handling of illegal immigration and the registration of FIRs based on complaints lodged by persons who were themselves allegedly identified as illegal immigrants.

"Ask them to control this (illegal immigration), leave other talks. What is the (Home) Department doing? Busy with other speeches?" the Court orally remarked without naming the Home Minister.

The Court further observed that a lack of police proactiveness against illegal immigrants can lead to national security consequences,

"If the police act against the security of the nation, if police act like this in support of illegal immigrants of Bangladesh against the people of this city... it is dangerous to the system. The security of the nation is at threat. The system should not support such things."

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Girish Bhardwaj submitted that the petitioner was a doctor and a social activist who had been assisting the police in identifying illegal Bangladeshi immigrants residing in Bengaluru.

According to him, information regarding the presence of illegal immigrants was furnished to the investigating officer on July 22, 2026.

Within 15 minutes of that information being communicated to the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), one of the alleged illegal immigrants lodged a criminal complaint against the petitioner, leading to registration of an FIR.

Counsel argued that another complaint filed by the petitioner later the same day also resulted in a criminal case being registered against him at another police station within hours.

The petitioner was arrested, remanded to custody, and released on bail the following day.

It was further submitted that if the police genuinely intended to act against illegal immigration, they ought to have proceeded against landlords who had allegedly rented premises to persons without valid documents.

Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) BN Jagadeesh submitted that the alleged illegal immigrants had already been produced before the FRRO and were presently kept in a detention centre.

He maintained that the complainant had alleged assault by the petitioner.

"We are saying they are illegal immigrants. They are staying illegally. They have been kept in the detention centre. Let the FRRO be made a party. We will secure all documents. There is no question of shielding anyone," the SPP submitted.

The Court noted that the investigating officer had, at 11:30 PM on July 22, officially communicated to the FRRO that the complainant was an illegal immigrant who ought to be detained and deported.

However, merely 15 minutes later, the very same person lodged a complaint alleging assault by the petitioner.

Justice Nagaprasanna found the sequence of events troubling.

"If you ask to send illegal immigrants out, based on the illegal immigrant's complaint you register a crime. They say they were beaten. Their address is Bangladesh. How are you registering a crime on such a complaint? Look at the complaint itself. It mentions Bangladesh. How did you even take this complaint?" the Court orally observed.

The Bench further questioned how the police registered what appeared to be a counter-case immediately after the petitioner alerted authorities regarding illegal immigrants.

"This is why illegal immigrants continue to stay. If the government supports them like this, this is what will happen. It is a straight counterblast," the judge remarked.

The Court also noted the absence of any medical evidence supporting the allegations.

"There is no wound certificate. No medical examination. At 11.30 pm the investigating officer found nothing. Within fifteen minutes, a complaint is registered. Can there be a better illustration of abuse of the process? Stop appeasing, how long (can this continue)? it is appeasement," the Court said.

Justice Nagaprasanna further expressed concerns over persons allegedly providing accommodation to undocumented foreign nationals.

"Many people give houses on rent for a few extra rupees. If greed overtakes the security of the nation, what else can be done? Action must also be taken against those who provide shelter to persons having no visa or documents."

The Court cautioned against filing FIRs on citizens who raise the alarm against illegal immigrants.

"It is high time the system stops supporting illegal immigration by registering crimes against citizens who merely identify illegal immigrants."

The Bench added that since the complainant herself had disclosed Bangladesh as her country of residence in the complaint, it ought to have prompted the Station House Officer to conduct a preliminary enquiry before registering an FIR and arresting the petitioner.

Holding that the facts prima facie disclosed an abuse of the criminal process, the Court stayed further investigation in both criminal cases against the petitioner until further orders.

The Court also directed that the FRRO be impleaded as a respondent, directed counsel Vinay Gopal to accept notice on its behalf, and ordered the FRRO to place instructions regarding the status of the alleged illegal immigrants before the Court.

The matter has been posted for further hearing on August 6, 2026.