The recent enforcement of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 on 1st September 20251, marks a watershed moment in India’s legal and security landscape. This is not merely a legislative amendment but a comprehensive overhaul that consolidates, modernizes, and fundamentally reshapes the nation’s approach to managing foreign nationals. The Act represents a profound shift from a fragmented, colonial-era system to a centralized, data-driven framework designed for the complexities of 21st-century global mobility and security.
For decades, India’s immigration and foreigners’ regulations were governed by a disjointed collection of laws, some dating back to the pre-independence era. The new Act repeals and replaces four key pieces of legislation:
- ThePassport(EntryintoIndia)Act,1920
- The Registration of Foreigners Act,1939
- The Foreigners Act,1946
- TheImmigration(Carriers’Liability)Act,2000
This consolidation is the most significant legislative move in this domain in over 75 years. Its primary objective is to create a single, unified legal framework that removes ambiguity and enhances efficiency. However, theAct’s ambition extends far beyond simplification; it is about establishing a more robust, technologically integrated system to track and regulate the entry, stay, and exit of foreigners.
A New Legal Paradigm: Centralization, Data-Driven Governance, and Shifting Rights
The Act pioneers a new legal paradigm built on three core pillars: centralization, data-driven governance, and a fundamental shift in the burden of proof. It moves beyond passive regulation to active, preemptive control over a foreigner’s presence.
Centralization of Power: The Rise of the Bureau of Immigration
At the very heart of this new legal regime is the statutory empowerment of the Bureau of Immigration (BOI). While the BOI has existed since 1971 as a part of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Act provides it with a new, robust legal mandate. Thelawexplicitlyprovidesfor
1TheImmigrationandForeignersAct,2025,No. 13of2025
theconstitutionoftheBOItoperformallimmigrationfunctions.The Bureau of Immigration is tasked with managing visa issuance, entry regulations, transit, stay, and exit of foreign nationals, and is empowered to coordinate with state governments and law enforcement agencies to identify and restrict the movement of foreigners when necessary. This move is a clear signal that the government is centralizing all aspects of immigration management under a single, dedicated agency, which will be supervised by a Commissioner of the BOI.
The Act grants the Central Government vast powers to regulate every aspect of a foreigner’s presence in India. These powers include:
- Prohibiting, regulating, or restricting the entry, departure, or presence of foreigners.
- Requiring foreigners to reside in a specific location or imposing restrictions on their movements.
- Mandating foreigners to furnish biometric information, handwriting,and signature specimens.
- Barring foreigners from engaging in specific activities or associating with certain individuals.
This centralization of authority streamlines control and decision-making, aiming to create a more consistent and disciplined approach to immigration governance. It also strengthens the government’s ability to act on national security concerns, which is a stated priority of the legislation. In the landmark case Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005)2, the Supreme Court strongly upheld the government’s right to centralize immigration controls, striking down the earlier IMDT Act for being insufficiently robust and reinforcing the primacy of the Foreigners Act in matters of national security and border management.
Beyond the Border: A New Data-Driven Surveillance System
The Act pioneers a new model of data collection that extends beyond traditional border checkpoints, creating a comprehensive network for monitoring foreign nationals within India. This is arguably the most significant practical change introduced by the newlaw.
The Act places a mandatory reporting obligation on a wider range of institutions and individuals:
- All hotels, guesthouses, and other forms of accommodation 8must provide information on foreigners staying on their premises to the Registration Officer.
2 Sarbananda Sonowalv.UnionofIndia,(2005)5SCC665
- Educational bodies that admit foreign students are now legally required to furnish information to the Registration Officer.
- Medical Institutions must report information on any foreigner receiving indoor medical treatment or their attendants.
This creates a digital web of information, allowing the BOI to maintain a near real-time record of a foreigner’s whereabouts and activities. This enhanced surveillance is not just for tracking;it is designed to help authorities identify visa overstays and deter illegal activities.
Furthermore, the law explicitly empowers civil authorities to control places frequented by foreigners. This includes the power to order the closure of such premises, place conditions on their use, or even restrict admission to certain classes of foreigners if deemed necessary. Local authorities, including the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Commissioners of Police hold responsibility for enforcement and oversight of compliance with these reporting requirements and local monitoring of foreign nationals.
Stricter Penalties and the Shift in the Burden of Proof
TheAct reinforces India’s security-first approach by imposing significantly escalated penalties for non-compliance. It also contains a provision that places the burden of proof squarely on the individual, a departure from standard legal practice in many jurisdictions.
- Penalties for Forgery:The use or supply of a forged or fraudulently obtained passport, visa, or travel document is a grave offense under the new law. It is punishable with a jail term of notless than two years and upto seven years, along witha fine of₹1 lakh to ₹10 lakh.
- Penalties for Illegal Entry: A foreigner who enters India without a valid passport, travel document, or visa can face imprisonment for up to five years and a fine of up to ₹5 lakh. Overstaying a visa is also a punishable offense, with a potential jail term of up to three years and a fine of up to ₹3 lakh.
- Liability of Carriers: The law places a significant burden on airlines and shipping companies. Carriers who transport a person into India in violation of the Act can be penalized witha fine of ₹2 lakh to ₹5 lakh. The civil authority also has the power to seize or detain the carrier’s aircraft or vessel if the penalty is not paid.
Perhaps the most significant legal implication is found in Section 16 (Burden Of Proof) of the Act,whichstatesthatifaquestionarisesaboutaperson’sstatusasaforeigner,”the onus of proving that such person is not a foreigner…shall…lie upon such person”. This is a profound departure from the legal principle of “innocent until proven guilty” and effectively shifts the legal responsibility from the state to the individual. This provision aims to curb illegal immigration but places a heavy legal burden on anyone whose nationality is questioned.
In RofiqulHoquev. Union of India &Ors (2025)3, the Supreme Court reinforced this principle, holding that inclusion in the National Register of Citizens (NRC) cannot override the findings of the Foreigners Tribunal, and the burden of proof rests upon the individual to establish citizenship . Similarly, earlier decisions such as Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India (2019)4, strengthened the precedence of tribunal findings and the evidentiary standards required in such cases.
Judicial Safeguard against Indefinite Detention
While the Act establishes a regime of strict enforcement, Indian courts have underscored the importance of constitutional safeguards and procedural fairness.
The Rajubala Das v. Union of India (2025)5 case stands out for the Supreme Court’s ruling that indefinite detention of “declared foreigners,” absent any viable prospect of deportation, violates Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. The Court has mandated strict compliance with deportation procedures, including nationality verification with the Ministry of External Affairs and judicial oversight over conditions of confinement.
In matters involving refugees, the Supreme Court has attempted to strike a balance between national security and humanitarian law. Recently, in Mohammad Salimullahv.Union of India (2025)6, the apex court addressed pleas against the deportation of Rohingya refugees, stating that while the government has authority under law to deport illegal immigrants, it must also adhere to legal process and humanitarian principles.
A Comparative Global Perspective: India’s Law in the International Arena
The legal paradigm established by the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, is not an isolated development but part of a broader global trend towards stricter immigration and border control.
3RofiqulHoquev.UnionofIndia(2025)INSC730
4AbdulKuddusv.UnionofIndia,(2019)6SCC604
5RajubalaDas v.UnionofIndia, W.P.(Crl.) No. 234/2020,SC
6MohammadSalimullahv.Union of India,W.P.(C)No.793/2017,SC
Many nations are adopting more security-focused, data-driven, and punitive measures, often framed as necessary for national security. Such as:
United States: The U.S. has adopted an AI-driven “Catch and Revoke” program. It uses artificial intelligence to monitor foreign nationals on social media to identify and revoke visasof individuals who may pose a national security risk. This zero-tolerance, “one strike” policy reflects a heightened focus on strict enforcement and data scraping to identify perceived threats.
Australia: Australia’s immigration policy is defined by a system of mandatory and, in some cases, indefinite detention for non-citizens who arrive without a valid visa. This policy, upheld by the High Court inAl-Kateb v Godwin7, is explicitly designed to maintain the integrity of its migration program and deter unauthorized arrivals.
Gulf Countries: Nations like SaudiArabia and Kuwait have a history of mass deportations of migrant workers on security and other grounds, often with limited avenues for appeal. These practices, often linked to the “kafala” sponsorship system, highlight how national security concerns are used to justify swift and often arbitrary removal of foreigners.
In this context, India’s new Act positions the country alongside global players that are prioritizing national security through centralized control and strict enforcement.
The Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 2025, provides formal exemptions from certain provisions of theAct for citizens of Nepal, Bhutan, Tibetan refugees, minority religious groups from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, as well as Sri Lankan Tamils, recognizing historical and humanitarian considerations.
Conclusion: The End of an Era, the Beginning of a New Law
The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, marks the end of an outdated legal era and the beginning of a modern, albeit more restrictive, one. It promises a secure and streamlined system for a country that is increasingly a destination for students, professionals, and tourists. Yet, its implementation will require careful consideration of the balance between national security and the fundamental rights of individuals. The new Act has both a clear promise and potential pitfalls. It promises a more efficient, technology-driven system that will likely enhance national security and help deter illegal immigration. By centralizing data and functions, it could streamline processes for legitimate travelers and businesses.
7Al-KatebvGodwin(2004)219CLR562(HCA)
However, the Act’s broad powers and strict penalties also raise questions.The emphasis on data collection and surveillance, while framed for security, could lead to privacy concerns. Similarly, the burden of proof on the individual, while intended to curb illegal immigration, could disproportionately affect those with weak or missing documentation. The success of the Act will ultimately depend on how the new rules and regulations are implemented, ensuring a balance between national security and the rights of foreign nationals.
As the late civil rights activist and lawyer Abraham Joshua Heschel once said,”The opposite of good is not evil, the opposite of good is indifference.” The newAct, in its ambition to secure the nation for its future,must also ensure that the principlesof justice and human dignity arenot treated with indifference. Its true measure will lie in how it treats all people, both citizens and non-citizens, with fairness and respect.
Author Name- Rayees, Designation: 4th Year Law Student, University of Kashmir
