Sweeping powers overshadow intent

The Immigration and Foreigners Bill which has been introduced in the Lok Sabha is, according to the government, aimed at modernising and consolidating immigration laws, some of which date back to the colonial era. It will replace four existing laws and will seek to streamline various services related to foreigners’ entry, exit, and stay in the country.

The government has also said that the objective is to enhance national security and control immigration procedures. The world over, there is a trend to tighten immigration rules with the intent to curb illegal migration. But the social and political climate in many countries is not favourable to even legal migration and foreigners’ entry.

The proposed legislation in the country should also be seen in that light. The bill says any foreigner who poses a threat to national security, sovereignty, and integrity “will not be allowed into the country or will be denied the permission to stay in India.” The provision is sweeping in its scope.

It is for a country to decide who visits and stays there. The laws and rules in exercise of the power should conform to constitutional provisions and universally accepted norms in the matter. From that point of view, some of the provisions of the bill have been seen to be excessively stringent and liable for misuse. Opposition parties have criticised them as violative of fundamental rights and other constitutional provisions.

The Constitution does not give foreigners unrestrained rights to stay in the country. But the criticism of the bill is centred around provisions that give the government absolute powers to prevent the visit of persons who may be its critics and to misuse the provisions for its political ends. Under the bill, no warrant is required to arrest a person who enters the country without valid documents. This is applicable even if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that the person does not possess valid papers. It places obligations on medical and educational institutions to report about foreigners to the registration authorities.

It is the unrestricted powers of the executive and the absence of any appellate mechanism that has invited the most criticism. There is also a provision that prohibits foreigners from associating with “persons of a specified description.” There are apprehensions that the legislation will enable the government to bar the entry of persons based on their political predilections and prevent visitors from meeting or interacting with persons the government does not like.

There should be scope for appeal against executive decisions. There should be no compromise on national security, but the law should not be misused to impose unreasonable curbs on foreigners. It can also hurt the image of the country.