State must consider foreign nationals' repatriation claims based on parity with similarly situated repatriated persons.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to parity in repatriation/deportation with other similarly situated foreign nationals under Section 11 of the Foreigners Act.

The court held

The Court held that Respondent No. 3 must consider the representation on its merits, specifically regarding the repatriation of similarly situated persons under Section 11(1) of the Foreigners Act, and must issue a speaking order.

It also directed

The Court disposed of the Writ Petitions by directing the Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur (Respondent No. 3), to dispose of the petitioners' representation dated February 24, 2026, on or before June 5, 2026; the order must be served on the petitioners by June 12, 2026, and their right to challenge said order is preserved.

01Facts

The five petitioners are citizens of Myanmar who entered India and were arrested on January 27, 2023, by Moreh Police for illegal entry.

pp. 9-10

An FIR was registered under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

p. 10

Although the petitioners were granted default bail by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Moreh, they remained in custody at the Foreigners Detention Centre.

p. 10, 16

The petitioners contended that the State had issued repatriation orders for 27 similarly situated Myanmar nationals in January 2026 but had not extended the same benefit to them.

p. 10, 14

A joint representation was submitted to the Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur, on February 24, 2026, seeking repatriation/deportation to Myanmar, which remained pending.

pp. 23-28

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to parity in repatriation/deportation with other similarly situated foreign nationals under Section 11 of the Foreigners Act.

p. 14, 28

ii.2. Whether a direction should be issued to the State to consider and dispose of the petitioners' pending representation for repatriation.

p. 28

03Law Applied

Section 11(1) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which grants the government the power to provide for the removal or deportation of foreigners from India.

p. 10, 28

Principle of parity in administrative action, as evidenced by the court's reference to its own prior judgment in W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 4 to 7 of 2026, where it held that representations for repatriation must be considered on their merits if other similarly situated persons have already been repatriated.

p. 6, 22

Provisions in the judgment · 2

Foreigners Act, 1946 Section 14Section 11

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioners’ cases were squarely covered by the precedent set in W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 4 to 7 of 2026.

p. 6, 23

The respondents (State and Union of India) conceded that an order akin to the previous judgment could be made.

p. 23

The Court reasoned that since the State had already exercised its powers under Section 11(1) of the Foreigners Act to repatriate 27 other individuals from the same group of 81 arrested persons, the petitioners’ request for similar treatment warranted formal administrative consideration.

p. 22, 28

The Court focused on the procedural obligation of the Commissioner (Home) to address the petitioners' representation dated February 24, 2026, by issuing a speaking order that specifically addresses the point of parity with previously repatriated nationals.

p. 28