Security or Rights? India’s New Immigration Law Dilemma

Human Rights on trial: Foreigner’s stories in India

India has sprang up as a global hub for students, professionals, and migrants seeking education, employment and opportunity. Every year, thousands of foreign nationals arrive legally, edifying India’s academic institutions, corporate sector and cultural landscape. Yet, for many manoeuvering India’s immigration architecture it can become a precarious and daunting experience. Recent episodes highlight how foreign nationals sometimes find themselves caught between compliance and enforcement, facing consequences that raise questions about their fundamental rights. Such tensions are not merely theoretical; they have real-world consequences. In August 2023¹, an Israeli national, David Driham, was falsely accused of drug possession in Goa. Seven police officers, including a Deputy Superintendent and a Sub-Inspector, planted ecstasy, heroin, cocaine, LSD and charas worth Rs 3.81 lakhs on him. The shocking act was exposed when Driham’s sister Ayala secretly filmed the officers. As the Deccan Herald² reported, the Goa Police admitted, “We are ashamed of the actions of our officers,” acknowledging the gravity of the misconduct. The Central Bureau of Investigation confirmed that the drugs were fabricated. The officers were charged, and Driham was cleared. In August 2025³, Delhi Police rounded up twenty-two foreigners from Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Liberia and other nations for overstaying visas. Many were students and daily-wage workers; their sudden detention not only cut short their education and livelihoods but also left families back home without financial support or clarity about their whereabouts. These stories are not isolated missteps; they are symptoms of a legal framework that prioritises control over compassion.

Redefining immigration law

Prior to 2025, India’s immigration landscape was governed by multiple statutes which comprised of the Foreigners Act, 1946⁴; the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920⁵; the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939⁶; and the Immigration (Carriers’ Liability) Act, 2000⁷. These fragmented laws created administrative gaps, inconsistencies in enforcement and uncertainty for foreign nationals. Recognising these challenges, Parliament enacted the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025⁸ to which the President gave her assent to the Bill on 4-4-2025 consolidating these statutes into a single legal framework. The Act states objectives which include strengthening national security, streamlining immigration procedures, and reducing ambiguity for both authorities and foreign nationals. Therefore, the key facets include mandatory reporting requirements, detention powers and defined penalties for non-compliance. The Act, though designed for efficiency and security, poses risks to human rights, prompting concerns over fairness, proportionality and accountability.

Broad powers, fragile liberties

Behind the promise of streamlined immigration control lies a darker reality. The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 which equips officials with powers so vast that liberty itself becomes negotiable. What begins as regulation risks sliding into repression. One of the most troubling aspects of the Act, lies in Section 27⁹, which hands sweeping powers to police and immigration officials. The provision allows them to detain a foreign national during an inquiry, verification or while awaiting deportation. On paper, it appears administrative in practice, it is a licence for open-ended confinement. Nowhere, does the law prescribe a maximum duration, nor does it mandate automatic judicial review. This silence is not a minor oversight rather it effectively permits detention that can stretch on for weeks or months, dictated more by bureaucratic delay than by legal necessity. Unlike Indian citizens, who are safeguarded by Section 58¹⁰ of the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023¹¹, requiring production before a Magistrate within 24 hours, foreign nationals are left exposed to indefinite custody, often without a fair chance to challenge their detention. The fresh legislation also casts a wide net through Section 18¹², which empowers officers to enter premises and apprehend foreigners without the safeguard of obtaining a warrant. Intended as a tool for efficiency, it bypasses judicial scrutiny, enabling arbitrary searches and arrests on mere suspicion. This creates fertile ground for profiling and harassment, where the line between legitimate enforcement, and arbitrary intrusion becomes dangerously blurred. Further compounding the problem is Section 28¹³, which restricts the granting of bail. Courts are often persuaded by the logic that foreigners pose a “flight risk”,¹⁴ making bail the exception rather than the rule. For many students and migrant workers, this means being locked away for minor paperwork lapses or visa overstays, treated no differently from hardened criminals. The result is not only the loss of liberty but also the disruption of education, careers, and reputations well before guilt or innocence is determined.

This legal architecture does not exist in a vacuum; it collides directly with established human rights protections. Article 21¹⁵ of the Constitution¹⁶ guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, yet the Act’s silence on detention limits leaves foreigners at the mercy of administrative discretion. Internationally, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1996 is unequivocal: Article 9 prohibits arbitrary detention, and Article 7 forbids cruel or degrading treatment. Housing immigration detainees in ordinary prisons alongside undertrials, denying them meaningful access to bail, and subjecting them to indefinite uncertainty pushes India perilously close to violating these standards.¹⁷ For students and workers who arrive with hopes of education or opportunity, such measures turn routine immigration checks into life-altering ordeals. Their liberties become collateral damage in a system where executive convenience outweighs individual dignity.

Institutional responsibilities and compliance challenges

The newly passed Act levies notable responsibilities on educational institutions, hospitals, and other organisations hosting foreign nationals. Mandatory reporting of arrivals, departures, and changes in immigration status is intended to improve compliance and support law enforcement. Administrative lapses and overreach can have severe consequences for foreign nationals, as seen in the Goa drug-planting incident. In such cases, even minor procedural errors or misuse of authority can escalate into wrongful detention, legal battles and public humiliation. The interplay between law enforcement, institutional reporting, and judicial oversight becomes critical in determining whether individuals are protected or subjected to injustice. These situations highlight the fragile balance between enforcing the law and safeguarding the rights of those navigating India’s complex immigration and legal system.

The human cost of enforcement

At the heart of the debate surrounding the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, lies a fundamental question, how does the law intersect with human rights? While the legislation emphasises national security and streamlined enforcement, its impact on the lived experiences of foreign nationals cannot be overlooked. Human rights principles particularly the right to personal liberty, equality before the law, and protection from arbitrary detention serve as a critical lens which can evaluate the Act’s implications.

When these principles are breached, the fallout goes beyond legal issues, disrupting education, jobs, families and social trust. Even minor lapses can trigger deportation or job loss, endangering individuals and institutions alike. The families of foreign nationals often bear an invisible burden. Emotional stress, financial strain, and social isolation can accompany prolonged legal uncertainty. Parents, spouses, or dependents may struggle to maintain stability while navigating a foreign legal system, further exacerbating vulnerability. The human cost shows that immigration law is not policy on paper but a force shaping lives and dignity. Moreover, enforcement measures under the Act, when applied without transparency or clear procedural safeguards, can erode trust in India’s institutions. Access to timely judicial review, clear communication from authorities, and consistent institutional support are essential to uphold poise among foreign nationals. Without such safeguards, fear and uncertainty hinder migrant’s engagement in education, work, and society, reducing their valuable contributions to India’s economy and culture. The societal implications are equally profound. Foreign students and professionals enrich the country with diverse perspectives, innovation and cross-cultural engagement. If legal enforcement disproportionately affects these individuals, India risks not only reputational harm internationally but also the loss of talent that fuels educational excellence, technological progress and global collaboration. Ensuring that the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 balances national security with humane implementation is thus, critical to sustaining India’s standing as a fair, inclusive and attractive destination for global talent.

Global lessons and the path forward

India’s approach to immigration law enforcement, as codified in the latest Act can benefit significantly from examining international practices and their policy implications. Across the globe, countries facing similar security and migration challenges have sought to strike a balance between enforcement and the protection of human rights. In the United States, the Immigration and Nationality Act, 1952¹⁸ operates alongside robust procedural safeguards, ensuring that detained individuals have timely access to legal representation, transparent hearings and the right to appeal. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, immigration enforcement is augmented by independent tribunals and oversight mechanisms, ensuring that administrative discretion is exercised within well-defined legal parameters. The European Union emphasises harmonised practices that protect the rights of foreign nationals, including minimum detention standards, family unity provisions and accessible complaint procedures.¹⁹ These specimens exhibit that effective immigration enforcement does not necessitate the erosion of fundamental rights; instead, the two can coexist through careful institutional design, clear procedural safeguards and transparent oversight. For India, adopting these lessons carries direct policy implications. First, procedural clarity must be embedded within the Act, leaving little room for administrative ambiguity that could adversely affect students, professionals, or other foreign nationals. Reporting requirements, detention procedures and compliance protocols should be standardised across institutions, with clear communication channels to reduce inadvertent violations. Second, judicial oversight must be reinforced as a central component of the enforcement framework, ensuring that detention or penalties are not applied arbitrarily and that affected individuals have meaningful access to review. Third, institutional accountability particularly among universities, hospitals, and other organisations hosting foreign nationals should be bolstered through training, monitoring and clear lines of responsibility. Lastly, accessible grievance and appeal mechanisms are essential to preserve trust in India’s legal and administrative systems. Implementing these policies protects foreign nationals’ rights and boosts India’s global credibility, attracting talent, driving growth and promoting cross-cultural exchange.

Hence, for India a policy framework that harmonises enforcement with human rights can enhance national security while simultaneously sustaining the country’s reputation as a welcoming and just destination for students, professionals and skilled migrants.