Introduction
- India’s labour migrants—mainly from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Kerala—are central to global labour markets and domestic remittance inflows. However, the Overseas Mobility (Facilitation and Welfare) Bill, 2025, proposed as a replacement for the Emigration Act, 1983, raises serious concerns about migrant protection, rights and federal balance.
- Dilution of Migrant Workers’ Rights
-
-
- The 2021 draft allowed migrants to directly initiate legal action against exploiters.
- The 2025 Bill removes this right, forcing workers to depend entirely on state machinery.
- This weakens access to justice and migrant agency.
-
- Gender and Vulnerability Blind Spots
-
- Labour migration is highly gendered, with women facing trafficking and sexual violence.
- The Bill replaces explicit protections for women and children with vague references to “vulnerable classes”.
- This risks judicial ambiguity and weak enforcement.
- Silence on Human Trafficking
-
- The Bill does not define or address human trafficking, despite migrants operating in high-risk corridors.
- Absence of safeguards enables modern forms of bonded and forced labour.
- Weak Regulation of Recruitment Agencies
-
- The Bill removes mandatory fee disclosure, increasing debt bondage risks.
- Accreditation without strong oversight creates scope for fraudulent agents.
- Contract substitution—lower wages and altered conditions upon arrival—remains unchecked.
- Post-Arrival Protection Vacuum
-
- Responsibilities for reception, dispute resolution and document renewal were explicit in 2021.
- The 2025 Bill shifts these to overburdened government bodies, reducing accountability.
- Overseas employers face no direct penalties.
- Digital Surveillance Without Safeguards
-
- The Integrated Information System collects migrant data without clear consent norms.
- The system prioritises state monitoring over worker protection.
- Online recruitment frauds via social media and messaging apps remain unaddressed.
- Poor Reintegration Framework
-
- “Safe return” lacks funding for skill training or trauma counselling.
- Deportees returning within 182 days are excluded from reintegration benefits.
- Excessive Centralisation
-
- The Overseas Mobility Council excludes migrant-sending States, trade unions and civil society.
- State Nodal Committees proposed in 2021 are removed.
- Migration governance ignores local realities despite crises emerging at the State level.
Way Forward
- Restore self-advocacy and legal standing for migrants.
- Mandate transparent recruitment fees and post-arrival safeguards.
- Clearly define human trafficking and strengthen penalties with compensation.
- Include States, trade unions and civil society in governance.
- Fund reintegration, skilling and counselling comprehensively.
Conclusion
- The 2025 Bill prioritises administrative convenience over migrant dignity. Instead of “facilitating” mobility, it risks institutionalising exploitation. For a country benefiting from migrant remittances, the need is not deregulation, but robust rights-based protection.
