The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025: A New Framework for India’s Migration Governance

The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 (Act No. 13 of 2025) marks a significant overhaul of India’s immigration regime. By repealing four legacy statutes and introducing a unified legal framework, the Act modernizes procedures for the entry, stay, and exit of foreigners.

I. Legislative Consolidation and Structural Reform

Effective from September 1, 2025, this Act consolidates a patchwork of colonial and post-independence laws into a single, comprehensive framework:

• Repealed Statutes:

  1. Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920

  2. Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939

  3. Foreigners Act, 1946

  4. Immigration (Carriers’ Liability) Act, 2000

The statute establishes the Bureau of Immigration (BoI) as the nodal agency, headed by a Commissioner of Immigration, providing centralized oversight over Foreigners Regional Registration Officers (FRROs).

II. Entry, Registration, and Sensitive Area Regulation

A. Entry and Permits

• Mandatory Requirements (Section 3): All entrants must possess a valid passport and visa. Entry may be denied on grounds of national security, public health, or foreign relations.

• Sensitive Areas (Section 11): Access to Protected, Restricted, or Prohibited Areas now requires specific permits codified under the statute.

B. Reporting Obligations and Tracking

The Act imposes strict reporting duties on third-party entities to facilitate tracking:

• Section 8 (Carriers): Airlines and other carriers must report passenger data. Non-compliance (Section 23) results in up to 3 years imprisonment or a fine of ₹3 lakh.

• Section 9 (Educational Institutions): Mandates universities to report foreign student admissions and activities.

• Section 10 (Medical Institutions): Hospitals must report details of foreign patients receiving indoor treatment within 24 hours of admission.

III. Penal Provisions and Enforcement

The 2025 Act significantly enhances the penalties for immigration-related offences compared to previous laws:

Enforcement Powers

• Burden of Proof (Section 16): Reverses the presumption of innocence; the individual must prove they are not a foreigner.

• Arrest Powers (Sections 26-27): Authorizes officers of the rank of Head Constable and above to arrest without a warrant and use reasonable force.

IV. Constitutional and Procedural Critique

Legal experts have raised concerns regarding the ultra vires nature of certain provisions:

1. Article 14 (Equality): Vague terms like “national security” and “public order” grant officers unfettered discretion, risking arbitrary or discriminatory denial of entry.

2. Article 21 (Life and Liberty): The mandate for extensive biometric data collection without clear privacy safeguards contradicts the Puttaswamy (Right to Privacy) ruling.

3. Procedural Gaps: The Act lacks a transparent appeals process for visa refusals and lacks “non-refoulement” safeguards for refugees, as critiqued by the UNHCR.

V. International Comparison: India vs. U.S.

• India (IFA 2025): Leans toward a security-first, executive-driven model. It prioritizes state control and digital administrative efficiency but lacks judicial oversight.

• United States (INA): Operates within a regulated, quota-driven framework. While it faces delays, it incorporates extensive judicial oversight through immigration judges and federal appeals.

• Legal Precedent: The US case Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) established that indefinite detention is unconstitutional. This serves as a vital benchmark for India to avoid “indefinite detention” under the new 2025 framework.

VI. Conclusion and Recommendations

While the Act strengthens national security and administrative coherence, its success depends on balancing state power with constitutional rights. Recommended reforms include:

• Establishing an Independent Immigration Appellate Tribunal.

• Setting a maximum detention cap (e.g., 7 days) to prevent indefinite confinement.

• Aligning the framework with international refugee conventions.