India’s rise as a major global economy has been accompanied by a vast outflow of labour migrants, especially from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Kerala, who work in construction, domestic care, manufacturing and services across the Gulf and Southeast Asia. Their remittances sustain households and bolster India’s macroeconomic stability. Against this backdrop, the Overseas Mobility (Facilitation and Welfare) Bill, 2025, currently before Parliament, seeks to replace the Emigration Act of 1983. While projected as a modern, efficiency-oriented reform, the Bill has raised serious concerns about weakening protections for migrant workers rather than strengthening them.
Why the New Bill Matters
Labour migration is not merely an economic phenomenon but a high-risk social process involving debt, family separation and exposure to exploitation. Any legal framework governing overseas employment therefore plays a critical role in shaping migrant outcomes. The 2025 Bill signals a shift in emphasis — from rights-based protection towards administrative facilitation — at a time when Indian migrants face tightening visa regimes, informal recruitment networks and rising vulnerability abroad.
From Rights to Administrative Control
One of the most contested aspects of the Bill is the dilution of enforceable rights available to migrant workers. The 2021 draft of the overseas mobility framework, though imperfect, allowed migrants greater agency by enabling them to initiate legal action against exploitative recruiters. The 2025 version removes this provision, placing enforcement largely in the hands of state authorities. This change risks reducing workers to passive beneficiaries of bureaucratic discretion rather than active rights-holders.
Gendered Vulnerabilities and Missing Safeguards
Labour migration is deeply gendered, particularly in sectors such as domestic work and caregiving, where women face heightened risks of abuse, trafficking and sexual violence. The 2021 draft recognised this by prescribing stronger penalties for crimes against women and children. The current Bill replaces this with a broader reference to “vulnerable classes,” without specific definitions or enhanced safeguards. Its silence on human trafficking further weakens protection in high-risk migration corridors.
Recruitment Agencies and the Persistence of Exploitation
Recruitment intermediaries remain central to overseas labour flows. The Bill removes mandatory transparency on recruitment fees that earlier drafts sought to enforce, increasing the risk of debt bondage. Migrants frequently incur large debts to secure overseas jobs, only to face contract substitution or wage reductions upon arrival. The proposed accreditation system for agencies lacks clear accountability mechanisms, while the removal of Emigration Check Posts in favour of digital clearances risks bypassing ground-level verification.
Limited Accountability After Migration
Once migrants reach destination countries, institutional support weakens further. Earlier proposals placed responsibility on recruitment agencies for post-arrival assistance, including dispute resolution and document renewal. The new Bill shifts these functions to government bodies that are often understaffed and geographically distant from worksites. The Integrated Information System proposed under the Bill raises additional concerns about data collection without adequate consent or clarity on usage, while doing little to address emerging threats such as online recruitment fraud.
Reintegration and Return: An Afterthought
Return migration, whether voluntary or forced, presents serious reintegration challenges. The Bill makes limited provisions for skill recognition, counselling or livelihood support for returnees. Migrants deported within 182 days are excluded from the definition of “returnees,” potentially denying them access to welfare measures. This narrow framing overlooks the psychological and economic costs of failed migration.
Centralisation and the Federal Disconnect
Migration governance in India has strong regional dimensions, with States such as Kerala and Uttar Pradesh playing a crucial role in migrant support systems. However, the Bill centralises authority through an Overseas Mobility Council with no mandated representation from States, trade unions or civil society organisations. The removal of State Nodal Committees proposed earlier further distances governance from local realities where migrant crises often surface first.
Weak Deterrence and Limited Remedies
While the Bill prescribes penalties for recruitment violations, these are largely financial and do not extend meaningfully to traffickers or abusive foreign employers. Compensation mechanisms for affected workers remain underdeveloped, limiting the Bill’s deterrent effect. The absence of clear definitions of trafficking and the narrow understanding of “work” also fail to reflect contemporary labour markets, including gig and platform-based employment abroad.
What to Note for Prelims?
- Overseas Mobility (Facilitation and Welfare) Bill, 2025
- Replacement of the Emigration Act, 1983
- Major migrant-sending States: Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Kerala
- Role of recruitment agencies in overseas employment
- Concept of contract substitution and debt bondage
What to Note for Mains?
- Shift from rights-based to facilitation-focused migration governance
- Gendered vulnerabilities in overseas labour migration
- Challenges of regulating recruitment intermediaries
- Centre–State issues in migration governance
- Need for reintegration and compensation frameworks for returnees
