Mentor’s Comment

India’s global workforce sustains both domestic households and foreign economies through remittances and labour. The Overseas Mobility (Facilitation and Welfare) Bill, 2025, introduced as a modern replacement to the Emigration Act, 1983, is projected as a reformist step. However, the article argues that the Bill weakens enforceable rights, dismantles accountability mechanisms, and centralises control in ways that heighten migrant vulnerability.

Introduction

India’s labour migrants, predominantly from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Kerala, and other economically stressed regions, occupy high-risk, low-protection jobs abroad, especially in Gulf countries and Southeast Asia. While they contribute significantly through remittances, the Overseas Mobility (Facilitation and Welfare) Bill, 2025 departs from a protection-centric approach and prioritises administrative facilitation. The legislation marks a shift from rights-based regulation to deregulated mobility, with implications for exploitation, trafficking, and migrant welfare.

Why in the News

The Overseas Mobility (Facilitation and Welfare) Bill, 2025 is under parliamentary consideration as a replacement for the Emigration Act, 1983. Unlike the 2021 draft, which envisaged migrants as rights-bearing agents, the 2025 Bill removes key safeguards such as transparent recruitment fee disclosure, strong anti-predation tools, and decentralised grievance redressal. The proposed framework centralises authority, dilutes protections for women and children, and reduces accountability of recruitment agencies, raising concerns of institutionalised exploitation rather than reform.

From Protection to Facilitation: The Legislative Shift

1. Regulatory Dilution: Replaces rights-based oversight with procedural facilitation, prioritising bureaucratic efficiency over worker protection.
2. Rollback of 2021 Safeguards: Removes mandatory transparent fee disclosure for recruitment agencies, reopening pathways for debt bondage.
3. Weakened Enforcement: Shifts enforceable rights to discretionary administrative functions, limiting judicial recourse.

Vulnerable Groups and Gendered Risks

1. Diluted Definition: Replaces explicit protection for women and children with a broad “vulnerable classes” category, reducing legal clarity.
2. Judicial Ambiguity: Encourages procedural delays and weak enforcement due to undefined vulnerability thresholds.
3. Trafficking Exposure: Undermines safeguards against sexual violence and trafficking in high-risk migration corridors.

Recruitment Ecosystem and Predatory Practices

1. Accreditation Gaps: Introduces agency accreditation without strong oversight, enabling fraudulent intermediaries.
2. Digital Deregulation: Removes Emigration Check Posts in favour of digital nodes, disadvantaging low-literacy migrants.
3. Debt Bondage: Allows unchecked recruitment fees, forcing migrants into exploitative financial arrangements before departure.
4. Illustrative Case: Workers paying lakhs for “guaranteed jobs” abroad face substituted contracts and wage reductions on arrival.

Governance Architecture and Centralisation

1. Overseas Mobility Council: Centralised body dominated by Delhi-based officials, marginalising migrant-sending states.
2. Federal Exclusion: States like Kerala and Uttar Pradesh lack representation despite high migration outflows.
3. Erosion of State Role: State Nodal Committees envisaged in 2021 draft removed or subordinated.

Post-Arrival Abandonment and Surveillance

1. Dissolution of Duties: Removes agency responsibilities for reception, mediation, and document renewal abroad.
2. Administrative Overload: Transfers migrant welfare to under-resourced government bodies.
3. Surveillance Bias: Integrated Information System prioritises data logging over consent-based protection.
4. Illicit Recruitment Blind Spot: Fails to address WhatsApp-based fake job scams and online trafficking networks.

Reintegration and Return Deficit

1. Symbolic Repatriation: Mentions “safe return” without budgetary or institutional backing.
2. Funding Exclusions: Denies reintegration support to deportees returning after 182 days.
3. Skill and Trauma Neglect: Omits vocational training and trauma counselling for returnees.

Accountability Deficit and Enforcement Gaps

1. Weak Penalties: Imposes nominal fines on recruitment rackets while shielding traffickers and foreign employers.
2. Rights Vacuum: Removes compensation-linked penalties for abuse and trafficking.
3. Justice Gap: Migrants reduced to administrative subjects rather than rights-holders.

Conclusion:

The Overseas Mobility (Facilitation and Welfare) Bill, 2025 represents a shift from rights-based migrant protection to administrative facilitation, weakening safeguards for India’s overseas workers. Without restoring accountability, state participation, and enforceable welfare mechanisms, the Bill risks institutionalising vulnerability rather than ensuring safe and dignified labour migration.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now