Section 6A and Assam

The Centre for Public Interest Law, Jindal Global Law School is currently offering the year-long Clinic on Citizenship and Statelessness, where students are developing research outputs on citizenship issues in India and assessing the citizenship determination framework under international law. This research note, prepared by Samia Khan, is part of the clinic’s outcomes.

In the year 1950, the Immigrant (Expulsion from Assam) Act was passed by the Parliament. The objects and purpose of the Act read: “During the last few months a serious situation had arisen from the immigration of a very large number of East Bengal residents into Assam. Such large migration is disturbing the economy of the province besides giving rise to a serious law and order problem” (see here). While the Act allowed the Central Government to give “directions in regard to” the removal of individuals from Assam, the application of the Act was barred against individuals who “on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances in any area” of Pakistan had been “displaced” or left their residence. While this Act marked the beginning of issues concerning migration, these issues came into the limelight with the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971, which led to a widespread migration from Bangladesh to Assam. 

The subsequent enfranchisement of refugees/migrants prompted the All Assam Students Union (AASU) to spearhead an “anti-foreigner” agitation in 1979, demanding “detection, disenfranchisement and deportation” of foreigners. Despite this agitation and resistance, Indira Gandhi’s government called for assembly elections in Assam in February 1983. While the AASU demanded for a boycott of elections, sections of Bengali Muslims decided to vote nonetheless in order to “effectively prove their claim to Indian citizenship”. These tensions culminated in the Nellie massacre which claimed around 1800 people according to official records, most of whom were Bengali Muslims. In the aftermath of Nellie, two legal developments followed. First, in 1985, a political settlement was reached between the agitators and the Central and State Governments, named the Assam Accord. Introduced through an amendment, Section 6A of the Citizenship Act was a legislative enactment for furthering the terms of this accord. Under Section 6A, any person who entered Assam from Bangladesh before the 1st of January, 1966 will be deemed a citizen of India. Persons who settled in the state between January 2, 1966 and March 24, 1971 would have to register themselves according to the rules laid down by the Central Government and would enjoy all other rights except the right to vote for a ten-year period. (see here) At the lapse of the ten-year period, they would become eligible to be enrolled in the electoral rolls. Finally, all those who migrated after the aforementioned date were to be expelled. 

The second important development happened two years before the Assam Accord, wherein Parliament passed the  Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals Act) of 1983. Read with Illegal Migrant Rules of 1984, these two would act in conjunction to “detect and deport” foreigners by Tribunals established under this Act. The IMDT Act allowed for complaints to be brought to the police by a person living within a 3 kilometer radius of the foreigner suspected to have entered India without the necessary travel documents. It also placed the burden of proof on the State and the complainant, to establish the person’s status as “illegal migrant”. However, the Act was challenged by Sarbananda Sonowal before the Supreme Court. 

In pronouncing the judgement, the Court relied upon a report by the Governor of Assam, S.K. Sinha which claimed that, “Muslim militant organisations [had] mushroomed in Assam” as a result of illegal migration from Bangladesh. While Governor Sinha’s report was not backed by any data or surveys, the Court nonetheless held that there was an “external aggression” against the State of Assam. Subsequently, invoking Article 355 of the Constitution, the Court held that IMDT’s placement of burdens was insufficient to check the issues laid down in Sinha’s report, and hence went on to hold the Act and the Rules unconstitutional. After Sarbananda Sonowal, the regime, rather than being governed by IMDT, returned to Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, the Foreigners Act, and the Foreigners Tribunal Order.

Section 6A and the Assam Accord are often seen as the “genesis of the updated NRC in Assam”. Section 6A is instrumental in the creation of the National Register of Citizens (‘NRC’) in Assam, which is currently being updated under the supervision of the Supreme Court. The process requires a person to prove their Indian citizenship by providing government documents that establish their family legacy and their right to reside in India. This tedious process is often impossible for persons with limited resources, resulting in them being left off the NRC and stripped of the protection offered by citizenship.

It is in this context that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act was challenged before the Supreme Court in a petition by a Guwahati-based civil society organisation, Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha (ASM) in 2012. While referring the case to a bigger bench, Justice Nariman framed thirteen questions of law. 

While a five-judge constitution bench was instituted by Chief Justice J.S. Khehar in 2017 which conducted two hearings, it was decided to reconstitute a fresh bench later. Subsequently, as the question still remains unanswered, it is evident that the lack of clarity has resulted in a lack of clarity about applicable legal standards for citizenship determination in Assam. There is an imminent need for the Supreme Court to rule on the validity of the Section. Delaying the ruling will only be harmful to the lives of thousands whose citizenship hangs in the balance.

Suggested Reading Material :-

1. Anupama Roy, Mapping Citizenship in India (Oxford University Press 2010) ch 2.
2. Abdul Kalam Azad, M. Mohsin Alam Bhat and Harsh Mander, ‘Citizenship and the Mass Production of Statelessness in Assam’, India Exclusion Report 2019-2020 http://centreforequitystudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/India-Exclusion-Report-2019-20-e-copy.pdf accessed 16 June 2021.
3. Ashna Ashesh and Arun Thiruvengadam, ‘Report on Citizenship Law: India’, GlobalCit Country Report July 2017 https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/47124/GLOBALCIT_CR_2017_12.pdf?sequence=1 accessed 16 June 2021.
4. Niraja Gopala Jayal, ‘Citizenship’ in Sujit Choudhary, Madhav Khosla, and Pratap Bhanu Mehta (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution (Oxford University Press 2016).

Refugees

The Centre for Public Interest Law, Jindal Global Law School is currently offering the year-long Clinic on Citizenship and Statelessness, where students are developing research outputs on citizenship issues in India and assessing the citizenship determination framework under international law. This research note, prepared by Soumyajit Joardar, is part of the clinic’s outcomes.

Introduction: The Refugee Convention of 1951

The term ‘refugee’ refers to people who are forced to flee their country due to the threat of persecution. The first refugees were white protestants who had to flee France due to religious persecution in 17^th century Europe. However, the concept garnered further interest only in the aftermath of World War II. Subsequently, in 1950, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was instituted to safeguard the interests of the Europeans displaced during the conflict period.

The Refugee Convention 1951 defines ‘refugee’ as a person who is unable or unwilling to avail the protection of their country of nationality and is residing outside their country due to the fear of prosecution based on factors such as race and religion or membership of any other social group. Article 33 of the Convention, through the principle of non-refoulement, has forbidden nations from returning refugees to the country where they would face the threat of persecution. Article 31 prevents States from penalising refugees for illegal entry until they present themselves to the authorities and show cause. Article 32 of the Convention protects expulsion of refugees except on grounds of national security or public order in accordance with due process.

In 1967, an additional Protocol was enacted to further safeguard the interests of the refugees. It removed the temporal and geographic limitations of the 1951 Convention. While India is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention, it is bound by certain principles of the Convention, such as non-refoulment, as they have become customary international law.

India’s International and Constitutional Law Obligations Towards Refugees

India is also a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), 1966, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), 1963. Hence, India is obligated to protect and preserve the rights of the refugees by virtue of principles such as non-refoulement and in light of its other civil rights related obligations under the ICCPR, ICESCR and the CERD.

India’s Treatment of Refugees: An Overview

India’s experience with Refugees began in the aftermath of the partition, when it dealt with mass inflow from Pakistan (and vice-versa) due to religious persecution. Nonetheless, in the years since then, India has not adopted a uniform policy on the issue. Instead, the treatment refugees receive depends on their country of origin.

The government has taken active steps to cater to the refugees from Tibet and Tamils from Sri Lanka. The Ministry of Home Affairs has categorically stated that India refers to only Sri Lankan Tamils and Tibetans as refugees and has specifically aided the Tibetans in multi-dimensional ways. The Tibetans have been provided land for settlement in Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand in addition to access to education, health care and welfare of their community interests. The Sri Lankan refugees, however, have not received the attention of the government. They find themselves languishing in camps in Tamil Nadu. These camps lack basic facilities such as sanitation and security. However, groups like the Chakmas or the Rohingyas are not treated like the Tibetans or Sri Lankan Tamils. Instead, India has been lackadaisical in providing basic facilities to the Chakma and Hajong refugees.    

Refugees from Myanmar have been treated differently and have been referred to UNHCR by the government. The role of the UNHCR is to preserve the interest of refugees and asylum seekers not protected by the Government of India. The UNHCR currently hosts 40,859 refugees and asylum seekers. Once determined by UNHCR as refugees, the individuals receive refugee cards which allow them access to education in government schools and free medical treatment in government hospitals. It also acts as a guarantee against forced deportation.

Having been surrounded by countries such as Bangladesh and Myanmar, India is in a unique position to take into account cultural interests of its neighbours alongside demographical considerations. However, the usual responses from India are limited to resources and infrastructure as a hindrance to accept refugees. There has been a resounding political consensus on this issue.

The Ministry of Home Affairs has taken a consistent position regarding the refusal of rights to the refugees to settle in the country. There has been a persistent understanding that the refugees are a burden on the taxpayers of the country. However, the fact that the refugees contribute significantly to the country’s economy is overlooked. Unfortunately, public discourse around India’s failure to fulfil its international law obligations towards Refugees is minimal. The status quo of non-uniformity reigns the landscape.

Suggested Readings:

1. P Oberoi. (2001) “South Asia and the Creation of the International Refugee Regime” Refuge, available at https://refuge.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/refuge/article/view/21228/19899.  
2. BS Chimni (2000) ‘Legal Conditions of Refugees in India’ in International Refugee Law: A Reader.  
3. Refugees Defined and Described in The Refugee in International Law (3rd Edition) Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, Jane McAdam, OUP.
4. CITIZEN REFUGEE: FORGING THE INDIAN NATION AFTER PARTITION by Uditi Sen.
5. Responding to protracted refugee situations: Lessons from a decade of discussion (FORCED MIGRATION POLICY BRIEFING 6) by Dr James Milner and Professor Gil Loescher.
6. The long partition and the making of modern South Asia (2010), New York: Columbia University Press.
7. Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Annual Report 2018-19. https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/AnnualReport_English_01102019.pdf.
8. UNHCR Fact Sheet on India 2020. https://reporting.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/UNHCR%20India%20fact%20sheet%2031%20December%202020.pdf. 

Foreigners’ Tribunals

The Centre for Public Interest Law, Jindal Global Law School is currently offering the year-long Clinic on Citizenship and Statelessness, where students are developing research outputs on citizenship issues in India and assessing the citizenship determination framework under international law. This research note, prepared by Shuchi Purohit, is part of the clinic’s outcomes.

Foreigners’ Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies set up by the Central Government to determine whether a person is a foreigner or not under the Foreigners’ (Tribunals) Order, 1964, created under the Foreigners Act, 1946. The Executive appoints judicial members to adjudicate cases before FTs. These tribunals differ from other tribunals or courts of law in India in terms of procedure, selection criteria of judicial members, examination of evidence, absence of an appellate body, etc. Presently, as many as 1.4 lakh cases of suspected foreigners are pending before 300 tribunals functioning in Assam. 

History and Establishment of Foreigners’ Tribunals

The primary aim behind setting up foreigners’ tribunals was to avoid arbitrary deportation. The Foreigners Act was first enacted in 1864, to limit the mobility of groups that the colonial British government saw as “disorderly or alien.” The Foreigner’s Act, 1946, which was adopted by independent India, incorporated this objective as well, in a situation where borders were porous and in flux, especially along the eastern borders. However, the Foreigners Act did not incorporate any mechanism for the identification and detection of foreigners. 

The 1961 Census Report focused on preparing data on irregular immigrants. 2,20,691 ‘infiltrants’ were found in Assam due to migration from East Pakistan. The Border police thereafter misused this data as they started detecting and deporting foreigners without any judicial process. The Ministry of Home Affairs then, through powers granted under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, passed the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964, so that no person would be deported without a hearing. 

In 1983, the Government of India passed the Illegal Migrant (Determination by the Tribunal) Act, 1983 (‘IMDT Act’). The objective of this Act was to determine foreigners who entered India after 25 March 1971, according to Section 6A of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 1986. Such individuals were ineligible to obtain Indian citizenship and were detected and deported in accordance with the IMDT Act. The IMDT Act differed significantly from the Foreigners Order in one respect: it placed the burden of proof for demonstrating that the individual is a foreigner upon the state. It also defined the eligibility criteria to be a judicial member of the tribunal. An option of the review was available in case a difference of opinion arose among the judicial members.

However, there was growing turmoil in Assam as the leaders of Assam Agitation believed that the IMDT Act was unsuccessful in detecting and expelling foreigners and the issue of irregular immigration remained unresolved. Hence, in 2005, in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court declared the IMDT Act as unconstitutional, as it found the procedure laid down in the Act to be “time-consuming”. The Court cited two reasons for its decision. First, that the Act failed to protect the people of Assam from external aggression by the migrants, which is the prerogative of the central government. Second, that in order to uphold national security, there was a need for identification of these foreigners to expedite their deportation. The Court struck down the IMDT Act as unconstitutional, and reverted to the Tribunal regime established under the Foreigners Act and Order, thus shifting the burden of proof to the individual suspected to be a foreigner. 

How do Foreigners’ Tribunals receive Cases?

There are three modes through which the Foreigners’ Tribunals receive cases: references from the Border Police, the Election Commission of India, and the National Register of Citizens. There are presently 1.9 million people who are excluded from the final draft of the NRC, waiting for their fate to be decided, as the process for their claim to citizenship before FT is yet to be started. 

Almost every district in Assam has Assam Police Border personnel stationed, who identify and investigate alleged foreigners based on their discretion. Cases identified by the Border Police are referred to FTs for final adjudication. However, civil society organisations argue that this power is often abused by the Border Police as they do not follow any investigatory guidelines to identify alleged foreigners, as laid down by the Gauhati High Court. 

Individuals can also be identified as foreigners by the Election Commission. In 1997, the ECI had identified around 2,30,000 voters as ‘doubtful,’ whose cases were then referred to FTs for adjudication. 

Finally, the National Register of Citizens in Assam is an exercise identifying all Indian citizens in the state. Individuals excluded from the list are identified as foreigners, who will have to prove their citizenship before FTs. In 2019, the final NRC list was released, which excluded around 19 lakh people from citizenship. In May 2021, the NRC Coordinator had filed an application before the Supreme Court seeking re-verification of the NRC, stating that some ‘issues of substantive importance’ cropped up while preparing the rejecting slips, thus delaying the process.

Lapses of Foreigners’ Tribunals in India

India is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and is hence bound by its treaty obligations. Article 14(1) of ICCPR states that every person is entitled to a “fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” The Foreigners Act falls short on each criterion set by ICCPR, as it fails to establish standardised criteria of eligibility for its members. 

Scholars and civil society organisations have raised concerns regarding the independence and impartiality of these tribunals. The appointed members of the Foreigners’ Tribunal do not have any specialized training in law or adjudication. This is evidenced by the Gauhati High Court’s circular seeking to appoint senior civil servants as members of the Foreigners’ Tribunal, as opposed to persons having prior adjudicatory or legal experience. Moreover, membership with the Tribunal is renewed or terminated depending on the conviction rate. Thus, members of the Foreigners’ Tribunal would be incentivised to declare more people as foreigners, to retain their seats. This leads to an inherent conflict of interest, which falls short of the requirement of impartiality.

The Act also fails to state the training a member needs to carry out the judicial duties, thus compromising the requirement of competency. In 2015, the training received by the 63 selected members spanned merely four days. Out of those, only two were former or serving judicial officers. Moreover, the Government of Assam has further lowered the threshold of experience required from 10 years to 7 years. The age limit of induction which was previously 45 years, is now 35.

The tribunals are empowered to regulate their own procedures, as provided by the 1964 Order. Civil society organisations have noted that in practice, this power is abused and the tribunals do not provide documents such as written statements, witness depositions, etc., which are necessary for an individual to fairly contest and appeal their case. More than 60% of cases are decided ex-parte, as most individuals do not receive show-cause notices. The Gauhati High Court had stated that since Foreigners’ Tribunals are not civil but rather quasi-judicial bodies, the principle of res judicata does not apply. However, the Supreme Court in Abdul Kuddus v. Union Of India, later overturned this ratio, finding instead that quasi-judicial orders rendered by Foreigners’ Tribunals have civil consequences. Therefore, the doctrine of res judicata would apply. Further, the orders passed by Foreigners’ Tribunals cannot easily be found in the public realm, making the entire process opaque.

The Foreigners Act and Order do not provide for a right to appeal against the decision of a Foreigners’ Tribunal and set up no appellate body. All appeals have to be made to the High Court and Supreme Court. There are various factors such as litigating costs, locations, the prolonged duration of appeals etc. which act as barriers to individuals approaching appellate courts for a review of their decision. Even if they wish to do so, this right has become judicially restricted through the decision of the State of Assam v. Moslem Mandal. The decision states that the tribunal is the final fact-finding body, post which facts cannot be challenged during the appeal. However, facts are the most important aspect of such cases. Lawyers practising in FTs note an alarming difference between the prescribed methods for fact-finding and how facts are actually obtained by the Border Police. The guidelines laid in Moslem Mandal propounded that the referring authority must forward their observations recording their satisfaction in such a manner that demonstrates their application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case; however, the fact-collection procedure is largely ignored. 

Conclusion

The objective of the 1946 Act was to deport legitimate foreigners in the Indian territory, rather than to determine the citizenship status of the masses to declare them foreigners. The functioning of these tribunals fails to take into consideration the grave risks associated with statelessness. It forces targeted individuals to live in limbo with constant anxiety over their civil and political rights. 

Suggested readings

1. Amnesty International India, ‘Designed To Exclude: How India’s Courts Are Allowing Foreigner Tribunals To Render People Stateless In Assam,’ (2019) <https://www.amnesty.be/IMG/pdf/rapport_inde.pdf>.
2. Talha Abdul Rahman, ‘Identifying the Outsider: An Assessment of Foreigner Tribunals in the Indian State of Assam’ VOL 2 NO 1 (2020): STATELESSNESS & CITIZENSHIP REVIEW <https://statelessnessandcitizenshipreview.com/index.php/journal/article/view/141>. 
3. Sangeeta Barooah Pisharoty, ‘Explainer: What Do the MHA’s Changes to 1964 Foreigners Tribunals Order Mean?’ (The Wire, 14 June 2019) <https://thewire.in/government/foreigners-tribunals-order-mha-changes> 
4. State of Assam v. Moslem Mandal and Ors. (2013) 3 Gau LR 402.
5. Mohsin Alam Bhat, ‘Twilight Citizenship’ (2020) 729 Seminar <https://www.india-seminar.com/2020/729/729_m_mohsin_alam_bhat.htm>. 
6. Citizens Against Hate, ‘Making Foreigner: Report on NRC Updation in Assam and the Risk of Mass Statelessness’ (2018) <https://citizensagainsthate.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Making-Foreigner.pdf> 

Deportation and Detention

The Centre for Public Interest Law, Jindal Global Law School is currently offering the year-long Clinic on Citizenship and Statelessness, where students are developing research outputs on citizenship issues in India and assessing the citizenship determination framework under international law. This research note, prepared by Andolan Sarkar, is part of the clinic’s outcomes.

A foreigner as defined in Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act of 1946 (‘the Act’) means a person who is not a citizen of India.[1] The ambit of this act extends to stipulating the deportation or detention of such foreigners. The definition of a foreigner within the Act, however, is vague since it negates the distinction between refugees, illegal migrants, and asylum seekers.

Deportation entails the expulsion of a foreigner from their current resident country to their country of origin or any other third country by any lawful authority on grounds authorised by law. While detention entails the lawful confinement of any individual, such confinement must be prescribed by any statute and sanctioned by the Court. The relevance of this discussion hinges on the several petitions challenging deportation orders and  thousands of individuals being detained in detention centres in dingy conditions for prolonged periods without a fair trial.

The authority of the Indian State to deport arises from Section 3 of the Act which allows the State to make orders restricting the stay of “foreigners” within Indian territory. Threat to national security, illegal entry into the country, commission of crimes by foreigners, residence within the country after the expiration of visa, violation of visa conditions, and nationality under question are some of the grounds on which the State has previously administered deportation orders.

In Assam, in particular, vide Notification No. 1/7/61–F.III dated the 22nd March 1961, the authority of the state to adjudge individuals as foreigners under clauses (c) and (cc) of Sub–section (2) of Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, was extended to the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Commissioners under the Govt. of Assam. This was followed by the entrustment of such a power by the President vide Notification No. 14011/13/75-F.III dated 17.02.1976 by virtue of under clause (1) of Article 258 of the Constitution. This was however, subject to the various conditions.[2] The power of issuing orders for detention, however, was not entrusted and yet has been exercised wherein movement of foreigners is being curtailed and they are being placed in foreigner wards in jails or detention centres. This is in conformity with the Madras High Court judgement dated 21.09.2007 in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1138 of 2006 titled Latha v. Public Department and Innocent v. State of Goa(which later reaffirmed this judgement)wherein it was deemed permissible for the state government to act under delegated powers under Section 3(2)(e) in keeping a foreigner in a detention camp.

Since there is immense administrative control without any definitive statutory grounds based on which deportation can take place, the State has often tried to pass arbitrary orders. For instance, in Kamil Siedczynski,[3] the State issued a Leave India Notice to a Polish student studying in West Bengal for participating in a protest against a new Indian legislation. The Court held such an order to be null and void, since it was arbitrary and without any reason. The Court held that the student was on a valid visa, and merely protesting against the State does not warrant a deportation.

Additionally, The State does not enjoy unfettered discretion to expel any foreigner. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution allows for the deprivation of life and liberty only on the basis of procedure established by law. The deportation of any foreigner must be in compliance with Article 21 and other international principles. A deportation order must be assessed by the courts to be just, fair, and reasonable as interpreted by Article 21.[4] A deportation order restricting the stay of a foreigner must also be proportionate to the end goal that it seeks to achieve.

Few principles in domestic and international law act as safeguards against the deportation of foreigners. For instance, Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention talks about non-refoulement, which means that no State can send foreigners back to the place where they may face the risk of persecution. India has often argued that it has no obligation to comply with the non-refoulement principle since it is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Nonetheless, India must abide by the non-refoulement principle while deporting foreigners as the principle has evolved to be a part of the customary international law and is embedded in several other international instruments to which India is a signatory.

Deportation and detention run hand in hand. Section 3(2)(g) of the Act empowers the State to make orders in relation to the arrest and detention of foreigners. Foreigners awaiting deportation, individuals who do not possess documents, or foreigners whose nationality cannot be determined are kept under detention. Detention is justified by the State on grounds that Article 19 is not applicable to foreigners.[5]

Furthermore, the actions of the government actors flout procedure when detaining individuals under the pretence of them being foreigners. As per Section 4(2) of the Act, every officer making an arrest under Section 4 shall, without unnecessary delay, take or send the person arrested before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case or to the officer in charge of the nearest police-station and the provisions of Section 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, (5 of 1898) shall, so far as may be, apply in the case of any such arrest. The same is not undertaken in the initiation of proceedings or competition of proceedings before the FTs.

Foreigners are detained for prolonged time periods due to lack of proper deportation procedures. Deportation can only take place when the receiving country is willing to accept the alleged foreigner. In several cases, foreigners are detained indefinitely as no other countries are willing to accept them. Many alleged foreigners claim to be Indian citizens, but are not able to challenge the decision of Foreigners’ Tribunals. This implies that several Indian citizens may have been wrongfully termed as foreigners and in the absence of any challenges, they still remain under wrongful detention. This runs contrary to the principles enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and Articles 9 and 14 of the ICCPR by virtue of which every individual, irrespective of their nationality, deserves a fair trial and has a right to approach the courts.[6]

It is to be noted that the power of detention enshrined in Section 3(2)(g) and Section 4 were deleted from the Foreigners Act vide the Foreigners Amendment Act, 1957 after the then Attorney General of India, Mr. MC Setalvad, conceded to its lack of compliance with Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution in the case of Hans Muller of Nuremberg v. Supdt. Presidency Jail, Calcutta, (1955) 1 SCR 1284. Such power was reintroduced by virtue of an amendment in 1962 in light of the war with China. It was via an amendment in 2013, that this power was addressed in Paragraph 3 of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.

Additionally, courts have looked down upon indefinite detention, since it runs contrary to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.[7] In Hussainara Khatoon,[8] the Court spoke about pre-trial detention and stated that “a procedure which keeps such large numbers of people behind bars without trial for so long cannot possibly be regarded as ‘reasonable, just or fair’”. Additionally, the courts, in the case of State of Assam v. Moslem Mandal, (2013) 3 GLR 402stated that there is a limitation of 2 months for the duration of how long a foreigner may be detained.

The detention of foreigners is administrative in nature. These foreigners have not committed any penal offence; therefore, they are placed in detention centres awaiting deportation. Even if convicted of a penal offence, they are placed there after completing their sentence. Foreigners in detention centres must be treated with dignity. Unfortunately, the condition of these detention-centres is highly appalling as they fail to provide the detainees with proper food, water, hygiene, healthcare and other basic facilities.[9] This runs contrary to the hearing in Santanu Borthakur v. Union of India, tagged with W.P. (Crl) 7/2020 titled Abantee Dutta v. Union of India.The courts, vide Order 07.10.2020, observed that foreigners could not be held in jails and that the detention centres created by state government is in compliance with the standards stipulated by the central government.

The Act, first, ought to make a clear distinction between all categories of non-citizens. Further,  it needs to mention definitive grounds based on which deportation can take place. In the absence of such grounds, the administration enjoys too much leeway in administering deportation orders. Most importantly, alleged foreigners cannot be made to live in inhuman conditions within these detention-centres for an indefinite time period. Foreigners ought to be governed by a regime of rights, where they are granted all the necessary facilities within the detention-centres. A foreigner enjoys all rights as mentioned under Article 21. The government and the local-administration should be the first points to ensure the well-being of all foreigners.    

SUGGESTED READINGS:

• Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1 of 2020, In Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus in Prisons.
• B.S. Chimni, The Legal Condition of Refugees in India, Journal of Refugee Studies, Vol. 7 No. 4 1994.
• National Human Rights Commission, ‘Report on NHRC Mission to Assam’s Detention Centres from 22 to 24 January, 2018’ (CJP, 2018) https://cjp.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/NHRC-ReportAssam-Detention-Centres-26-3-2018-1.pdf.
• Amnesty International, ‘Between Fear and Hatred: Surviving Migration Detention in Assam’
• (Amnesty International 2018) <https://amnesty.org.in/assam-detention-centres/&gt;
• Santanu Borthakur v. Union of India, Guwahati High Court, https://caselaw.in/gauhati/detention-centres-santanu-borthakur-india/18690/
• South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, ‘Lawfulness of Detention of Declared Foreigners in Assam under International Law’ (2019) https://www.dtp.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/u4/Lawfulness%20of%20Detention%20of%20Declared%20Foreigners%20in%20Assam-SAHRDC.pdf.
• Gauhati High Court ordered detention centres to be moved out of jails – but that’s just geography by Scroll.in – https://scroll.in/article/975410/gauhati-high-court-ordered-detention-centres-to-be-moved-out-of-jails-but-thats-just-geography
• Are detention centres similar to prisons? By The Economic Times – https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/are-detention-centres-similar-to-prisons/whats-real/slideshow/72963930.cms

---

Deprivation of Citizenship

The Centre for Public Interest Law, Jindal Global Law School is currently offering the year-long Clinic on Citizenship and Statelessness, where students are developing research outputs on citizenship issues in India and assessing the citizenship determination framework under international law. This research note, prepared by Khush Aalam Singh, is part of the clinic’s outcomes.

Deprivation of citizenship can be defined as an involuntary loss of citizenship status that was previously held by a person. It is a predominantly legal concept which carries serious consequences. This is because citizenship of a state gives a person access to several rights and protections guaranteed by the state. Acquiring citizenship carries a sense of recognition in social, political, and legal terms. Citizenship also provides access to the conditions and services which are vital for a person’s dignified existence. If a person is deprived of their citizenship, they no longer have a claim to its benefits. This can also get carried forward to the person’s descendants, impacting their access to rights. Additionally, citizenship deprivation may result in the removal of the person from the territory of the state, thereby violating their right to reside in their country.

The idea of deprivation of citizenship has been echoed in various similar expressions. These include terms such as: revocation of citizenship, involuntary loss of citizenship, denationalisation, citizenship erasure etc. While revocation, denationalisation, and involuntary loss do not carry substantial difference from deprivation, citizenship erasure is a concept that requires further classification. Citizenship erasure is described as the “arbitrary retroactive non-recognition” of citizenship of a person. This has been considered distinct from deprivation as it denies the very existence of citizenship status claimed by a person outright, whereas deprivation is carried out in accordance with law. In other words, deprivation takes place in accordance with deprivation provisions contained in a state’s citizenship law, whereas erasure does not involve the formal procedure. Nonetheless, for the purposes of this note, citizenship erasure falls within the ambit of deprivation, as the consequence is the loss of nationality which was not voluntary in nature. In many situations, deprivation of nationality can result in a person becoming stateless. This may leave them vulnerable to human rights violations without any effective recourse.

Deprivation of Citizenship in Domestic and International Law

Under Indian law, the principal framework for deprivation of nationality is the Citizenship Act, 1955 as well as the rules made thereunder. Section 10(2) of the Act empowers the Central Government to deprive a person of their citizenship. This power to deprive citizenship, however, applies only in the case of persons who have acquired citizenship by naturalisation, registration or by ordinary residence in Indian territory five years prior to the commencement of the Constitution. This means that persons who are born in Indian territory or to parents who are Indian citizens cannot be deprived of their citizenship under this provision (jus soli and jus sanguinis citizenship).

Deprivation of citizenship under Section 10 of the Act can only be ordered on specific grounds. The implication of these grounds is that the state cannot arbitrarily deprive persons of their citizenship. The grounds set out in Section 10 must be adhered to. These include (among others) – obtaining citizenship by fraud, disloyalty or disaffection by act or speech to the Indian Constitution, unlawful trade or communication with an enemy, etc. Section 10(3) provides that the Central Government shall not deprive a person of their citizenship unless it is satisfied that the continuation of citizenship is not conducive to the public good. The Telangana High Court in Dr. Ramesh Chenammameni v. Union of India has held that the requirement under Section 10(3) is mandatory, and that a person cannot be deprived solely on the ground of satisfying the conditions under Section 10(3). The Central Government has to satisfy both counts – that the person in question has violated the provisions of Section 10(2) and that the continuation of citizenship is not conducive to the public good.

The principal framework under international law dealing with deprivation of citizenship is the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Article 8 of the Convention prohibits depriving a person of their nationality where the result of such action would be the person becoming stateless. Clauses 2 and 3 of the Article contain exceptions to this prohibition, which include obtaining nationality of the Contracting State by fraud or misrepresentation, conduct that is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the state etc. Article 9 of the Convention prohibits deprivation of nationality of a person or a group of persons on racial, ethnic, religious or political grounds. While India is not a signatory to this Convention, its courts have been mindful of statelessness as a consequence of deprivation of citizenship.

Additionally, India is obliged under its treaty obligations to prevent statelessness as a consequence of deprivation of nationality. It is also obliged to ensure that no person is arbitrarily deprived of their nationality. Article 15(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) prohibits arbitrary deprivation of nationality. This prohibition has now been recognised as a well-established norm of customary international law. Furthermore, India had a vital role to play in advocating for the insertion of Article 15(2) during the drafting of the UDHR.

The Right against Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality

The right against arbitrary deprivation of nationality finds mention in the UDHR and several international conventions, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) etc. This is supplemented by its inclusion in regional frameworks, such as the American Convention of Human Rights (Article 20). This right is of crucial importance when looking at instances of deprivation of citizenship. This is because this right covers two situations of deprivation. Deprivation can be a result of the procedure established in municipal law or by discriminatory refusal to recognise a person or group of persons as citizens. The understanding of arbitrariness under international law is not limited to something being ‘against the law’. It has been understood in a broader sense, encompassing elements of unfairness, inappropriateness and injustice. Arbitrariness also seeks to ensure that ‘lawful’ interference with rights of a person is reasonable. This requires robust substantive and procedural safeguards, as well as conformity to both domestic and international law.

There are several aspects of citizenship deprivation in India that remain unaddressed, raising strong concerns about arbitrariness. Several bonafide Indian citizens face the threat of arbitrary deprivation of their nationality as a result of the process of expelling ‘foreigners’. In particular, over 1.9 million persons in Assam excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) are at the brink of statelessness. Their fate will be decided by the Foreigners Tribunals which raise many significant due process concerns. The current policy on deprivation does not account for deprivation of citizenship through parallel procedures sanctioned by law. Furthermore, there are several inadequacies in terms of substantive and procedural rights for persons being deprived of their citizenship. As a result of wrongful deprivation, a person will languish in detention for the purpose of deportation. These consequences are particularly grave and debilitating, therefore requiring extreme caution and respect for human dignity. Thus, citizenship deprivation calls for greater attention as an urgent issue that needs to be addressed.

Suggested Readings:

• UNHCR Guidelines on Statelessness #5: Loss and Deprivation of Nationality under Articles 5-9 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness
• Bronwen Manby, ‘Citizenship Erasure: The Arbitrary Retroactive Non-Recognition of Citizenship’ in ‘The World’s Stateless 2020: Deprivation of Nationality’ by the Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion (ISI) – Page 197-202
• Written Submissions of the Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion (ISI) in the case of Huseynov v. State of Azerbaijan (2018)
• Centre for Public Interest Law, ‘Securing Citizenship: India’s legal obligations towards precarious citizens and stateless persons’ – Section I.A.3 of ‘Status’ vertical

---

Naturalisation

The Centre for Public Interest Law, Jindal Global Law School is currently offering the year-long Clinic on Citizenship and Statelessness, where the students are developing research outputs on citizenship issues in India and assessing the citizenship determination framework under international law. This research note, prepared by Pritha Paul, is part of the clinic’s outcomes.

Naturalisation refers to the incorporation of migrants usually displaced due to economic, political, or environmental reasons, among others, or immigrants looking for better living conditions or educational and employment prospects in the state they move to. It is a process promising not only recognition of their socio-economic contributions but also improved socio-economic opportunities. Historically, the word ‘naturalisation’ is derived from Middle French ‘naturaliser’ which means “to admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen”.

Jus soli was the guiding principle of the eighteenth century feudal European citizenship until the French Revolution reintroduced the Roman jus sanguinis principle. Both proved inadequate when the two World Wars left numerous migrants, refugees, and stateless persons in foreign lands without protection under the laws of that state. Naturalisation provided an opportunity to people, who were neither born within a State nor had ancestral ties to it, to become citizens solely by virtue of their personal connection formed with the State. Such connections could be established through residence, intention to settle, or a lack of ties to other countries. However, most states hold elaborate and intrusive tests to scrutinise this connection. For instance, Denmark has prescribed housing, residence, employment, language, and lifestyle requirements.

In India, naturalisation is one of the five ways in which one may become an Indian citizen, governed by section 6 of the Citizenship Act of 1955. To be eligible for naturalisation, one must be of good character, reside in India for a period of eleven years, and speak any of the official Indian languages. Upon being granted Indian citizenship, one must renounce any prevailing citizenship, take an oath of allegiance, and reside in or serve India. Initially, one had to renounce one’s existing citizenship upon applying for naturalisation. This had the potential to render one temporarily or permanently stateless depending on the approval or rejection of the application, respectively. Hence, the change is appreciable. However, in a lower-middle income country like India, an application fee of Rs. 1500 and requirement of language proficiency create invisible barriers for poor and illiterate migrants. Contrarily, the privileged who have a symbiotic relationship with the state are overindulged. The state may waive any or all naturalisation requirements for “distinguished” persons. Proficiency in a local language can propel social and economic integration. However, in their home state, persecuted persons are often systematically denied education and employment. In the host state, they are put in isolated squalid detention camps without basic facilities as has been seen in the case of Rohingyas. Even when free to live in the community, they are compelled to settle in the peripheries, like the Afghans in Delhi. For such people, it is nearly impossible to fulfil the naturalisation requirements.

Naturalisation tests ensure not only a low number of naturalised persons but also fewer applicants out of fear of failure, which perhaps is the primary aim of the tests. Between 2011 and 2020, merely 1380 foreigners were granted Indian citizenship through naturalisation. Moreover, the Act, through the 2003 amendment, made “illegal migrants” completely ineligible for Indian citizenship through registration or naturalisation. The unwillingness of the State to incorporate migrants leaves them in a limbo. Most of them cannot be deported due to the principle of non-refoulement. They remain in India for the rest of their lives, but as non-citizens.

Section 6, however, is not applicable to the state of Assam, which is governed by section 6A of the Act. Unlike Section 6, which applies to all persons regardless of their origin, Sections 6A and 6B create special pathways to citizenship for persons migrating from Bangladesh. It ‘regularizes’ i.e. grants immediate citizenship to those who entered Assam from Bangladesh before 1966. Persons who entered between 1966 and 1971 are conferred all qualities of a citizen except the right to vote until ten years from the day of their detection as a “foreigner.” After ten years, they too are regularised. Those who were expelled but managed to re-enter illegally before 1971 or those who entered after 1971 are to be deported. This special provision created two artificial distinctions by:

1. Granting regularisation to Bangladeshi migrants who entered Assam before 1971 but not to those who entered other bordering states,
2. Allowing “illegal migrants” who entered India before 2003 to naturalise under Section 6 but not those who entered Assam after 1971.

Additionally, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2019, excludes non-Muslims who entered India from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh before 2015 from the category of “illegal migrants.” It eases their residency requirement from eleven years to five years. The ease is a welcome move. However, the country and religion based classifications are non-secular, arbitrary, and unreasonable.  Many have argued that they violate the Indian Constitution which guarantees certain fundamental rights to all persons irrespective of their citizenship status.

A state cannot be compelled to grant citizenship. However, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 includes in Article 15, “Everyone has the right to a nationality”. The UDHR has become customary international law binding on all states. Granting nationality through naturalisation is an important step in eliminating statelessness. Since India has an obligation towards reducing statelessness under customary international law and other international treaties, India must facilitate naturalisation of stateless persons. A provision obstructing “illegal migrants” from naturalisation is in tension with international law. Articles 31 and 34 of the 1951 Refugee Convention and Article 32 of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons instruct easing the naturalisation process for refugees and stateless persons. Ireland has reduced residency requirements for refugees and waived naturalisation certificate fee for refugees and stateless persons.

As a good practice, one may refer to Prabhleen Kaur v. Union Of India. The only country the petitioner had any real connection to under Section 8 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 was India. Denying her Indian citizenship was held a violation of Article 15 of the UDHR. The court stated that her good character evidenced in her school and college certificates, her knowledge of the nation and her being a part of a community entitle her to be naturalised under Section 6(1) of the Act and she cannot be denied citizenship.These are the factors generally looked at while granting Indian citizenship.

With the refugee crisis and statelessness becoming global phenomena, naturalisation is becoming increasingly important as a means for non-citizens to find a safe space and a community in a strange land. Ironically, the process does exactly the opposite of what it promises, acting as a constant reminder of the ‘otherness’ that one must shed for a mere chance at approval and acceptance. India must remove the restriction on “illegal migrants” and ease the naturalisation requirements for refugees and stateless persons, irrespective of religion and country. This would only be a small step towards ensuring equity and fairness.

Suggested readings:

1. Katherine Tonkiss, ‘What’s So Bad about Citizenship Testing?’ (E-International Relations, 28 November 2014) https://www.e-ir.info/2014/11/28/whats-so-bad-about-citizenship-testing/ accessed 24 November.

2. Oded Löwenheim & Orit Gazit, ‘Power and Examination: A Critique of Citizenship Tests’ (2009) 40(2) Security Dialogue.

3. Albert Kraler, Migration and Citizenship: Legal Status, Rights and Political Participation (Amsterdam University Press 2006) ch 2.

4. Pritam Baruah, ‘Not Just Equality, the CAA Betrays Constitutional Values of Dignity, Integrity’ The Wire (27 December 2019) https://thewire.in/rights/caa-constitution-equality accessed 24 November 2020.

5. Vatsal Raj, ‘Statelessness in India – Seeking Solutions in International Law’ (Cambridge International Law Journal, 11 February 2020) http://cilj.co.uk/2020/02/11/statelessness-in-india-seeking-solutions-in-international-law/#:~:text=Migration%20is%20a%20phenomenon%20of%20human%20civilisation.&text=The%20solution%20lies%20in%20the,dictate%20the%20laws%20of%20citizenship accessed 24 November 2020.

6. Asha Bangar, ‘Statelessness in India’ (2017) Statelessness Working Paper Series No. 2017/02 https://files.institutesi.org/WP2017_02.pdf accessed 24 November 2020.

7. Oxford Handbook of Citizenship (Oxford University Press 2017) ch 16.

8. Graziella Bertocchi and Chiara Strozzi, ‘The Evolution of Citizenship: Economic and Institutional Determinants’ (2006) IZA Discussion Paper No. 2510 http://ftp.iza.org/dp2510.pdf accessed 24 November 2020.

9. Ministry of Home Affairs, ‘Procedure For Applying Online For Indian Citizenship’ https://indiancitizenshiponline.nic.in/Ic_GeneralInstruction.pdf accessed 24 November 2020.

---

Stateless Persons

The Centre for Public Interest Law, Jindal Global Law School is currently offering the year-long Clinic on Citizenship and Statelessness, where students are developing research outputs on citizenship issues in India and assessing the citizenship determination framework under international law. This research note, prepared by Niharika Jain, is part of the clinic’s outcomes.

A person is considered to be stateless if they are not recognised as nationals or citizens of any country. As per the UNHCR, at present there exist over 10 million stateless persons in the world, however only 3.9 million of them are accounted for. Civil society organisations have pointed out that this number can be as high as 15 million. In India, over 1.9 million people are facing the risk of statelessness after being excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) implemented in Assam in 2019.

Statelessness is often a result of conflicting nationality laws, where one allows for nationality to be acquired at birth and the other through descent if one’s parent is also a national. It can also be a result of discrimination in nationality laws based on factors such as religion, ethnicity, gender, along with instances where the State arbitrarily deprives persons of their nationality, as in the case of Assam. Earlier the mandate of UNHCR on statelessness extended only to stateless persons who were refugees. However, it is now known that even though some stateless persons are refugees, many stateless persons never cross an international border. Statelessness affects the basic rights, including the right to nationality, that every citizen enjoys, which includes fundamental rights, civil and political rights, and economic rights.

The 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness address various issues related to statelessness in the world. Article 1 of the 1954 Convention defines a ‘stateless person’ as one who is not considered a national by any State under the operation of its law. The 1961 Convention provides that a person may acquire nationality of a contracting state or not be deprived of it if they would otherwise be stateless. Part II of the Indian Constitution stipulates who is a citizen of India, but is silent on stateless persons. It is pertinent to note that India has not ratified either of the two conventions. However as per Article 51 (c) of the Constitution, the Government needs to foster respect for international law which includes treaty obligations that India is party to and customary international law. This includes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (UDHR), as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and other treaty provisions that safeguard the right against arbitrary deprivation of nationality.

The Citizenship Act of India, 1955 was initially envisaged based on jus soli practice, wherein citizenship was granted by virtue of the person’s birth on state territory. This was followed by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1986 that introduced restrictions based on jus sanguinis, wherein a person’s citizenship became dependent on citizenship of their parents. Section 3(1)(b) of the Act states that a person born on or after 1 July, 1987 but before the 2003 amendment shall be a citizen if either of their parents were citizens at the time of birth. However, this has the potential of creating a situation of statelessness where both parents are non-citizens or possess no nationality but the child is born in India.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 has the serious potential of aggravating the problem of statelessness in India as it excludes ‘illegal migrants’ and their descendents from citizenship. An ‘illegal migrant’ is defined as “a foreigner entering India without valid documents”. Section 3(1)(c) confers citizenship by birth only when at least one parent is an Indian citizen and the other is not an illegal migrant. Further, section 5 and section 6 of the Act explicitly disqualifies illegal migrants and their children from registration and naturalization respectively, and in any case as the registration of minors requires a valid foreign passport, which they do not possess due to statelessness. This poses a threat of statelessness as they are unable to acquire citizenship from any of the provisions of the Citizenship Act, despite residing in India for a long time, having family ties and attachment to India.

The identification of stateless persons within a jurisdiction is an important step in ensuring they are accounted for in legal documents and can benefit from various human rights commitments. In India, the Foreigners Act, 1946, which has been put in place to regulate the entry, presence and departure of foreigners in India, fails to distinguish between the different categories of non-citizens. The Act defines a foreigner as “a person who is not a citizen of India” and bundles both stateless persons and persons with another nationality together without differentiation. Section 8 of the Act on the determination of nationality does not account for the risk of statelessness where, after the completion of the determination procedure, a foreigner appears to have no nationality. There is no mention of ways in which the issue of statelessness can be resolved, or of the fate of such persons on identification.

The Passports Act, 1967 is the only Indian legislation that mentions the category of stateless persons and caters to their need to have a record of their identity. Section 4 of the Act provides for issuance of passport, travel document and certificate of identity. Schedule II part II of the Passport Rules, 1980 states that a Certificate of Identity can be issued for stateless persons residing in India, for foreigners whose country is either not represented in India or whose nationality is in doubt. However, the form for the certificate makes it mandatory to submit a ‘residential permit’ along with information regarding the ‘last permanent address abroad’. This is based on the assumption that the applicant is a migrant from abroad and fails to account for a person who may not have left the country. This was addressed in the case of Sheikh Abdul Aziz v. State NCT of Delhi, where the HC recognised the urgency of determining the legal status of the petitioner as he had been detained for seven years in addition to his sentence under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act. The Court directed the Government and the Passport authorities to issue a stateless certificate under Rule 4 and grant him a Long-Term Visa (LTV) after the failure of nationality determination. This enabled his right to a dignified existence upon Indian soil.

More recently, the National Register of Citizens implemented in India has left many on the verge of statelessness. The final NRC list, published on August 31^st 2019, excluded about 1.9 million people, leaving them at the risk of statelessness. As per scholars, this coupled with the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 is discriminatory in nature as it only allows non-Muslims, who are religiously persecuted minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, to be granted citizenship. Section 14A added by the 2003 Amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955 authorized the Government to compulsorily register every Indian citizen in a National Register of Indian Citizens and issue National Identity Cards. The purpose of this is to identify and deport illegal immigrants. The first National Register of Citizen was prepared for Assam, after the 1951 census of India, to identify illegal immigrants, but it was not maintained. This was again taken up following the SC order in 2013 whereby the Government was directed to update the NRC for Assam. As per several high-ranking government ministers, NRC is proposed to be implemented across India. There are concerns that it may result in putting more people across India at the risk of statelessness if they are unable to show documents that prove their ancestors were citizens of India.

Suggested Readings:

1. “Securing Citizenship India’s legal obligation towards precarious citizens and stateless persons”, Centre for Public Interest Law, Jindal Global Law School, September 2020.
2. Bikash Singh, ‘Citizenship Amendment Bill: Why Assam is protesting?’ Economic Times (17 December, 2017)
3. India and the Challenge of statelessness: A review of the legal framework relating to nationality, National Law University, Delhi, 2012.
4. The Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion, The Worlds Stateless: Deprivation of Nationality, March 2020, Microsoft Word – FINAL PART I.docx (institutesi.org).
5. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, Institutional Discrimination and Statelessness in India, Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Mr. Ahmed Shaheed, June 1^st 2020, Microsoft Word – Statelessness in India.docx (ohchr.org).

---