Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
The Punjab NRI Sabha is routinely dismissed as a failed institution—a powerless private society incapable of resolving the grievances of Non-Resident Indians (NRIs). It is a convenient diagnosis. It is also an incomplete one.
The Sabha’s failure does not stem from being “private”. It stems from something far more problematic: it is government- controlled, yet lacks statutory authority.
This distinction matters because it shifts the debate from legal form to institutional design.
The standard description of the Sabha—as a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860—captures only one part of the picture.
In practice, the Sabha is deeply embedded within the state apparatus. The Chief Minister serves as its Chief Patron. Senior serving official Divisional Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners—occupy key structural roles. Bureaucrats sit on advisory bodies, and government authorities supervise elections, accounts, and functioning.
More importantly, its own constitution explicitly states that one of its objectives is “to act as an agency of the State Government for promoting the welfare of NRIs of Punjab.”
Further, the Sabha has been declared a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the Punjab State Information Commission.
This is not a typical private body. It is a state-controlled platform operating without statutory backing. The real issue lies in the mismatch beMeen expectation and capacity.
Punjab has created an institution that is projected as a grievance redressal platform for NRIs, structured under government oversight, but deprived of enforceable legal powers.
The result is predictable. NRIs approach the Sabha expecting institutional authority; what they encounter is advisory limitation.
This is not merely inefficiency—it is a design flaw.
Administrative measures—such as procedural changes in land matters or the creation of NRI police stations—have not resolved the underlying problem. Procedural adjustments cannot substitute for legal authority.
Another argument often made is that the Sabha, being a society, is not bound by strict transparency norms. This is misleading.
Once declared a public authority under the RTI Act, it is legally obligated to provide information and function under public scrutiny. Any refusal is not proof of private status—it is evidence of non-compliance.
The dominant narrative suggests that the Sabha cannot function because it is private. But this reverses cause and effect.
The Sabha struggles because it occupies an ambiguous space—controlled like a public institution, but functioning without the powers of one. That ambiguity creates the illusion of authority without the ability to deliver outcomes.
Concerns are often raised that granting NRIs special mechanisms would violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. This concern is overstated.
Indian law already recognises reasonable classification through fast-track courts, special tribunals, and sector-specific frameworks.
NRIs face distinct challenges—distance, vulnerability in property disputes, and dependence on local systems. At the same time, they contribute significantly to the economy through remittances and investment.
Providing procedural support—such as expedited timelines or dedicated mechanism is not about creating privilege. It is about ensuring effective equality.
A carefully designed Punjab NRI Affairs Act, focused on procedural efficiency rather than substantive advantage, can meet constitutional standards.
It is tempting to attribute the Sabha’s decline to leadership failures, electoral disputes, or funding constraints. These are symptoms, not causes.
The deeper issue is structural. The state retains control, encourages reliance, but avoids granting authority. This creates plausible deniability without responsibility.
Punjab’s options are not limited to creating a powerful statutory commission or accepting a symbolic body.
It can clearly define the Sabha as an advisory platform, enforce transparency under RTI, and strengthen existing legal mechanisms. Alternatively, it can enact a statutory framework with defined powers and fast-track mechanisms.
What it cannot continue is the present ambiguity.
The problem is not that the Sabha claims power it does not have. The problem is that a state-controlled institution is allowed to operate without clear authority, responsibility, or accountability—while being presented as a solution.
The Punjab NRI Sabha exists in a grey zone—structured by the state, recognised under RTI, yet lacking statutory force. Reducing its failure to its legal status oversimplifies the issue.
Punjab has created a body that looks like the state, is controlled like the state, but does not function with the power of the state.
Until that contradiction is addressed, the Sabha will continue to fall short of the expectations placed upon it. Warm regards,
Karan Randhawa
Former Advisor, NRI Affairs
(Views are personal.)
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.