A State made a law to regulate the stay and movement of foreigners in that State. Discuss the Constitutional validity of such a law.

Facts of the Case

A State Government enacted a law to regulate the stay and movement of foreigners within its territory. The law imposes restrictions on where foreigners may reside, travel, and work within the State. Questions have arisen regarding whether such a law is constitutionally valid, considering that the entry, residence, and movement of foreigners is a matter covered by the Union List under the Constitution.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether a State Legislature has the power to regulate the stay and movement of foreigners.
2. Whether the State law encroaches upon Union List subjects, such as Citizenship, Immigration, and Foreigners’ Affairs.
3. The extent to which State police and administrative powers can be exercised over foreigners.

Legal Principles Covered

A. Constitutional Provisions

1. Seventh Schedule – Union List
   • Entry 7: Citizenship, naturalization, aliens, and expatriation.
   • Entry 52: Foreigners and matters related to their entry, residence, and removal.
   • Parliament has exclusive power to legislate on these subjects.
2. Entry 21 of State List
   • States can legislate on public order, police, and local administration, which may incidentally affect foreigners.
3. Article 254 – Inconsistency Between Union and State Law
   • If a State law is repugnant to a Union law, the Union law prevails, and the State law becomes void to the extent of repugnancy.

B. Judicial Principles / Precedents

1. R.K. Garg v. Union of India (1981) 4 SCC 675
   • Parliament has exclusive power to regulate foreigners’ stay and rights.
   • State laws cannot override Union legislation on the same subject.
2. Dr. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831
   • State legislation in areas closely connected to public order and police is valid as long as it does not conflict with Union law.
3. Union of India v. State of Rajasthan (1977) 1 SCC 199
   • States can make incidental provisions affecting foreigners for public safety and order, but cannot encroach on the Union List subjects.

C. Principles

• Exclusive Union Power: Regulation of foreigners’ entry, residence, and movement is primarily under Parliament.
• State Incidental Power: States may regulate foreigners for public order, health, and safety, provided there is no conflict with Union law.
• Doctrine of Repugnancy: If a State law contradicts central law, it is void to the extent of inconsistency.

Possible Judgement / Legal Advice

1. Validity of State Law
   • Law is constitutionally valid if it:
     1. Regulates movement incidentally for public order, health, or safety.
     2. Does not conflict with any central law on foreigners.
   • Law is invalid to the extent it attempts to control residence, entry, or citizenship matters, which fall under Union List.
2. Advisory Conclusion
   • The State cannot legislate exclusively on the status, rights, or fundamental privileges of foreigners, as these are Union subjects.
   • State may issue rules affecting public safety, police enforcement, or local administrative measures that affect foreigners, provided they are consistent with central laws.
   • Any repugnancy with Union law would render the State law void in those aspects.

About lawgnan

Explore the foreigners regulation law debate at Lawgnan.in and understand the constitutional division of powers between the Union and State governments. Discover how Entries 7 and 52 of the Union List give Parliament exclusive authority over foreigners’ entry, residence, and movement, while States may act only incidentally for public safety and order. Read key judgments like Union of India v. State of Rajasthan and R.K. Garg v. Union of India, explaining the fine balance between sovereignty, federalism, and public security. Visit Lawgnan.in for simplified legal analysis, landmark case summaries, and expert constitutional insights.