• Weakening Legal Protections: The Bill reportedly removes provisions that allowed migrant workers to pursue direct legal action against exploiters, shifting the burden of enforcement to an "overstretched state apparatus". It weakens the binding nature of rights and relies more on administrative mechanisms than enforceable legal rights.
• Inadequate Penalties and Accountability: Critics argue the penalties for recruitment rackets are insufficient and do not adequately address the issues of human trafficking and exploitation by overseas employers. There are calls to effectively criminalize such malpractices and mandate compensation for victims.
• Centralization and Exclusion of Stakeholders: The proposed Overseas Mobility and Welfare Council is a central body, but critics note that state governments (like Kerala and Uttar Pradesh, major sources of migration), trade unions, and civil society/rights groups are not given a seat at the table. This approach is seen as sidelining the federal nature of migration management and creating solutions in isolation from local realities.
• Insufficient Safeguards for Vulnerable Groups: The Bill has been criticized for diluting specific safeguards for women and children, despite labor migration being a deeply gendered issue.
• Lack of Reintegration Policy: There is an absence of a national, centrally-funded policy on the reintegration of returned or deported migrants, leaving the responsibility primarily with state governments.
• Scope of Coverage: The Bill focuses heavily on employment-related migration but initially did not cover student migrants, who also face unique challenges abroad.

• Restoring Legal Recourse: The Bill has been criticized for removing provisions that allowed migrant workers to directly pursue legal action against exploitative recruitment agencies or employers. Advocates demand the restoration of these self-advocacy rights, ensuring workers have enforceable legal pathways to justice rather than relying solely on administrative mechanisms.
• Mandating Transparent and Ethical Recruitment: The Bill is seen as insufficient in regulating recruitment fees, which often lead to debt bondage and exploitation. Recommendations include mandating transparent recruitment fees (with the employer bearing the costs, as per ILO standards), restoring on-ground checks at emigration points, and establishing clear accountability for recruitment agencies post-arrival in the destination country.
• Strengthening Penalties and Anti-Trafficking Provisions: There are demands to make penalties for recruitment rackets meaningful and to explicitly address human trafficking within the Bill. This includes mandating compensation for victims and ensuring that overseas employers and traffickers face sufficient legal consequences, not just administrative fines.
• Inclusive Governance: Critics argue that the proposed Overseas Mobility and Welfare Council is overly centralized under the Ministry of External Affairs, excluding crucial stakeholders like state governments (major sources of migration), trade unions, and civil society groups. A federal and participatory governance model is advocated to ensure policies are informed by grassroots realities.
• Gender-Specific Safeguards: Given the gendered nature of labor migration and the high risks faced by women (e.g., physical, psychological, and sexual abuse), advocates call for the inclusion of strong, specific protections rather than vague references to "vulnerable classes".
• Comprehensive Reintegration Support: The Bill lacks a well-funded, national policy for the social and economic reintegration of returned or deported migrants. A robust system for rehabilitation, including skill training, trauma care, and access to social security benefits, is considered essential.
• Leveraging Technology with Safeguards: While digital platforms for registration are a positive step, civil society emphasizes the need for clear data protection and consent norms to prevent surveillance and ensure data is used solely for worker welfare. 

• Paradigm Shift Needed: The Bill needs a fundamental shift from an administrative facilitation framework to a legally binding, rights-based instrument.
• Strengthened Accountability: Specific legal provisions must be restored or added that allow workers direct recourse against exploitation and impose stringent, enforceable penalties on unethical recruiters and abusive employers.
• Inclusive Governance: A top-down, centralized council under the MEA is insufficient. Effective protection requires a federal approach that includes state governments, trade unions, and civil society as active participants in policy-making and implementation.
• Comprehensive Welfare Net: The final legislation must incorporate dedicated safeguards for vulnerable groups (women, low-skilled workers) and a nationally funded policy for the social and economic reintegration of returnee migrants.

Download Pdf