New Delhi – The Rajya Sabha on Wednesday passed the Immigration and Foreigners Bill, 2025, amid strong opposition from Congress and Trinamool Congress (TMC) MPs, who staged a walkout in protest. The bill, which had cleared the Lok Sabha last week, seeks to regulate immigration, entry, and stay of foreigners in India.
Leading the charge against the legislation, Congress MP and senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi criticized the bill, calling it a “pernicious” attempt by the government to treat all foreigners as “potential criminals” and impose an “Orwellian surveillance” system.
“I oppose this bill and seek substantial changes in its pernicious character. It is clearly designed for ulterior motives by a control-freak government bent upon sending out a message of fear,” Singhvi said during the debate.
Opposition Raises Concerns Over ‘Excessive Powers’ Given to Officials
Singhvi, along with other opposition leaders, argued that the bill grants unwarranted authority to immigration officers, effectively elevating constables to the level of “super commissioners” with broad discretionary powers.
“Excessive delegation to lowly officials with humongous breadth of discretion is the visiting card of this bill,” Singhvi said.
The bill empowers immigration officers to make final decisions on entry, stay, and deportation of foreigners, with no appeal mechanism available. Singhvi called this provision “a licence for harassment”, based on the assumption that foreigners “have no rights under the Indian Constitution.”
“From dreams of being a vishwaguru and enveloping the world in the embrace of India’s soft power and ‘Atithi Devo Bhava,’ this bill instead sends a message that all foreigners are potential criminals,” he added.
Government’s Justification: National Security and Sovereignty
Defending the bill, government representatives emphasized its necessity for safeguarding national security, sovereignty, and foreign relations. The legislation provides the central government with the authority to refuse entry or deport any foreigner on various grounds, including public health and “other grounds” as the government may specify.
Singhvi took particular issue with this broad scope, arguing that such undefined clauses could be misused to target individuals arbitrarily.
Despite opposition protests and proposed amendments, the bill was passed by voice vote, marking another legislative victory for the government but deepening political divides over India’s approach to immigration and civil liberties.
