Consolidating colonial-era immigration laws is necessary but not sufficient. Evaluate in light of due-process concerns over the power to restrict movement and deport.

The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 (Act No. 13 of 2025) replaces four laws: the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939, the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act, 2000 [1]. Bringing them into one law was overdue. However, the Act still lacks procedural safeguards on detection, restriction and deportation.

Why consolidation was necessary

• Overlaps and gaps removed: the Home Minister told the Lok Sabha that the four laws overlapped and left gaps. One code now governs entry, stay and exit [2].
• Institutional clarity: a statutory Bureau of Immigration headed by a Commissioner [1]. The IVFRT tracking system now has a legal basis, which helps the State act against overstayers [2].
• Deterrence: entering without a valid passport or travel document can bring up to 5 years' imprisonment and/or a ₹5 lakh fine [1].
• Flexibility: the Act lets the government make rules, so procedures can change without amending the Act [2].

Why it is not sufficient: due-process gaps

• Reverse burden of proof: under Section 16, the person must prove they are not a foreigner, "notwithstanding" the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 [3]. The Act does not say who may raise the question or what evidence they must show first. Poor citizens without old documents are most at risk.
• Arrest at the lowest rank: a Head Constable can now arrest without a warrant. Under the 1920 Act, only a Sub-Inspector or above could do so [4].
• Delegation without uniform standards: the Centre's powers under Sec 7(2), 13 and 29 to detect, restrict and deport have been delegated to States and UTs [5]. Many police forces can now make decisions on personal liberty without a common procedure.
• Taken together: a person can be arrested without a warrant and must then prove their own status. At no point does the State have to show evidence early.

Way forward

• Section 16 rules should set a minimum evidence threshold for raising a question about someone's status.
• A senior officer should have to approve warrantless arrests. Legal aid and reasonable time to collect documents should be guaranteed.
• Keep the graded approach to overstays: regularisation for a fee when it is unintentional, and a Leave India Notice when it is deliberate [6].

On balance, consolidation was a necessary first step. To be sufficient, the Act's rules must also give fair procedure. Only then will it meet Article 21's test of a procedure that is "fair, just and reasonable" (Maneka Gandhi, 1978) and protect both national security and citizens' liberty.