India’s Overseas Bill Betrays Migrant Workers

The Overseas Mobility (Facilitation and Welfare) Bill, 2025, risks institutionalising vulnerability among Indian labour migrants.

About  Overseas Mobility (Facilitation and Welfare) Bill, 2025

• Replace the Emigration Act of 1983: The government has introduced this Bill to replace the Emigration Act of 1983 to modernise the legal framework governing Indian workers abroad, especially blue-collar migrants in the Gulf and South-East Asia.
• Reactions: While the government presents it as a facilitation-oriented reform, critics describe it as a “Trojan Horse” that conceals multiple structural and rights-based concerns.

Key Provisions Of The Bill

• Access to Justice through State Machinery: The 2021 draft allowed migrant workers to approach courts if they were cheated directly. 
  • The 2025 Bill removes this provision and requires workers to rely on state machinery for legal redress.
• Gender-Neutral Categorisation of Vulnerability: The Bill replaces specific penalties for crimes against women and children with the broader term “vulnerable classes.”
  • This approach is described as gender blind and risks diluting justice and deterrence against human trafficking.
• Regulation of Recruitment Agents: Unlike earlier drafts, the Bill does not mandate recruitment agents to disclose their fees. 
  • This omission leaves workers vulnerable to debt bondage and contract substitution after arrival abroad.
• Integrated Information System: The Bill proposes an integrated information system to manage data related to migrant workers.
  • Concerns have been raised that this system may be used for surveillance rather than worker assistance.
• Absence of Provisions on Digital Recruitment Fraud: The Bill does not address job scams operating through digital platforms such as WhatsApp, leaving migrant workers exposed to online recruitment fraud.
• Centralised Governance Structure: The Bill abolishes State Nodal Committees involved in migration governance. 
  • It also provides no representation for states such as Kerala or Punjab in the Overseas Mobility Council.
• The 182-Day Rule: Workers who return or are deported before completing 182 days abroad are excluded from the definition of “returnees.”
  Such workers are therefore deprived of government assistance or retraining support.
• The Kafala System: The bill is silent on penalties for foreign employers and fails to protect workers against the restrictive “Kafala” system common in Gulf countries.
  • The kafala system prevalent in the Middle East binds a migrant worker’s residency and employment status to a specific employer throughout their stay in a country.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Conclusion

India’s labour migrants are not expendable exports. The Bill must define trafficking clearly, include gig and emerging work, and fund reintegration adequately. This moment demands fortification, not facilitation—else reform will collapse into systemic breakdown.