The Calcutta High Court examined whether a person suspected of being a Bangladeshi illegal immigrant can be detained and deported without following due process under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Constitution. The court questioned whether Article 21's protection of life and personal liberty extends to foreign nationals on Indian soil, and whether executive action alone — without adjudication — can strip a person of liberty pending deportation. The ruling reaffirms that procedural safeguards cannot be bypassed even in immigration enforcement.

This case sits at the intersection of three constitutional doctrines that CLAT PG tests repeatedly: the scope of Article 21, the reach of fundamental rights to non-citizens, and the limits of executive power under the Foreigners Act, 1946.

Article 21 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) extended this to require that the procedure be fair, just, and reasonable — not merely that some procedure exists. This 'due process by another name' standard is the critical test here.

Crucially, Article 21 uses the word 'person,' not 'citizen.' The Supreme Court confirmed in Louis De Raedt v. Union of India (1991) that foreign nationals on Indian soil enjoy Article 21 protection, though their right to remain in India is not absolute. The State retains power to deport under the Foreigners Act, but must follow a procedure that satisfies Article 21's threshold of fairness.

The Foreigners Act places the burden of proof on the person to prove they are not a foreigner — a reversal of ordinary presumption. The Calcutta High Court's scrutiny targets whether this reversed burden, combined with administrative detention without judicial oversight, crosses the constitutional line. The Foreigners Tribunal mechanism is the prescribed adjudicatory body, and bypassing it raises a fundamental due process challenge.

For CLAT PG, the examiner will test whether the aspirant can identify: (a) that Art 21 applies to non-citizens, (b) that Maneka Gandhi's 'fair procedure' standard governs, and (c) that the Foreigners Act's reverse burden is constitutionally valid but must still be applied through proper adjudication.