The Indian government has introduced the Immigration and Foreigners Bill 2025 in the Lok Sabha during its Budget Session. This bill seeks to regulate the entry, exit, registration, and movement of foreigners in India by effectively repealing and replacing existing legislation, including the Foreigners Act, 1946, Immigration (Carriers’ Liability) Act, 2000, Passport Act, 1920, and the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939. While aiming to simplify and consolidate these regulations, the bill raises critical concerns over the widening of executive powers without adequate procedural safeguards.
- The bill aims to create a unified digital registration system for foreigners, enhance penalties for illegal immigration, and introduce new provisions for deportation and detention, echoing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s controversial citizenship and immigration policy.
- This move is indicative of broader policy thrusts that have raised significant constitutional challenges, particularly impacting the northeastern state of Assam, a major battleground for citizenship claims. The SCI has previously recognized the poor conditions in Assam’s detention centers, as outlined in various court challenges.
- The bill vests significant powers in the Central Government and Immigration Officers, stipulating wide discretion in the management of foreigners without the necessity for judicial oversight or individualized assessments.
- Sections 3(3) and (4) allow immigration officers to demand, inspect, and seize travel documents without judicial authorization, and Section 12(1) permits confinement to designated areas without court approval. Such measures lack transparency and accountability, potentially leading to the misuse of powers.
- Moreover, there is no established appellate mechanism for individuals affected by adverse immigration decisions. Section 29 allows for deportation without independent review or appellate options, while Section 15 bestows the final authority on immigration officers to determine nationality, unless the government opts for a discretionary review.
Legal scholars highlight the potential for arbitrary power as outlined in past judgements such as S.G. Jaisinghani and Constitution bench decisions, emphasizing the link between excessive discretion and constitutional violations, notably under Article 14. The concerns are underscored by the absence of a structured relief mechanism, leaving affected individuals vulnerable to uncontestable and potentially life-changing decisions without procedural safeguards envisaged under past precedents like Puttaswamy and Maneka Gandhi cases.
For more insights into this evolving legal landscape, read the full article by Simone Vadiya on JURIST.