Minister of State for Home Affairs, Nityanand Rai, presented the bill, emphasizing the necessity to modernize and consolidate the nation's immigration laws to address emerging challenges. He highlighted that the proposed legislation seeks to strengthen immigration control, enhance security, and penalize violations effectively.
However, the introduction of the bill was met with strong opposition. Opposition members contended that the bill violates constitutional provisions and demanded its referral to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for thorough scrutiny. They argued that certain clauses could potentially infringe upon individual rights and lack clarity regarding the implementation framework.
The bill proposes to repeal and replace four existing laws, aiming to modernize India's approach to immigration. Key provisions include granting the government authority to impose passport and visa requirements, enhancing national security measures, and introducing stricter penalties for foreigners who violate entry and stay regulations.
Critics have raised concerns about the bill's potential impact on civil liberties. They argue that certain provisions could lead to arbitrary actions against individuals and may not align with India's constitutional values of equality and non-discrimination. The timing of the bill's introduction, ahead of the upcoming general elections, has also been questioned, with some suggesting it could be a strategic move to influence voter sentiment.
In response to the opposition's demands, Minister Rai assured that the government is open to discussions and will consider suggestions to refine the bill. He emphasized the importance of updating the immigration framework to address contemporary challenges and ensure national security.
The bill's introduction has also sparked reactions from various state governments and civil society organizations. Some states have expressed apprehension about the bill's implications on federal structures and the autonomy of states in managing local immigration issues. Civil society groups have called for wider consultations to ensure that the bill does not infringe upon human rights and adheres to international standards.