Analysis of Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019

Introduction

The Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 (CAA) was passed in both Houses of the Parliament on December 10 and 11, 2019, and came into force on January 10, 2020, when it was formally notified.[i] The CAA expedites the process of attaining citizenship for “any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014.”[ii]

The Act conspicuously left out Muslims from the purview of this benefit and thus drew a controversy surrounding its constitutionality. It gave rise to a myriad of questions, as follows:

Whether this law is violative of Part-III of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before law to all persons and prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, among other things? Whether this law discriminates against certain Muslim sects such as Hazaras in Afghanistan and Ahmadiyyas in Pakistan who are persecuted in these countries? Whether the intention of the Legislature in enacting this law is one of bona fide intention or to increase polarisation of the masses? Why does the Act exclude religious minorities persecuted in other neighbouring countries such as Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, Christians in Hindu-majority Nepal and Buddhist-majority Bhutan and Tamilian Hindus in Sri Lanka?[iii] Whether this Act violates the basic structure of the Constitution by violating the principle of secularism as enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution?[iv] What are the consequences of implementing the CAA along with the National Population Register (NPR) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC)? Whether this amendment Act is in line with the international obligations of India as state party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) among other International Treaties and Covenants?

Citizenship in India

Part II of the Constitution of India deals with citizenship. The Citizenship Act of 1955 recognises citizenship by birth[v], descent[vi], registration[vii] and naturalisation[viii]. The Citizenship Act has been amended six times, i.e., in 1986, 1992, 2003, 2005, 2016 and 2019[ix].

Under the 1955 Act, any person born in India on or after the 26th day of January 1950 would be considered to be an Indian citizen. However, the Act was amended for the first time in 1986, and an additional requirement was added to obtain Indian citizenship, i.e., at the time of birth, one of the two parents must be an Indian citizen.

A person who is born outside India would be a citizen of India by descent if his father is a citizen of India. The term “father” was replaced by “either of his parents” by the 1992 amendment to the Citizenship Act. Therefore, any person born outside India on or after 26 January 1950 and before 10th December 1992 would be an Indian citizen by descent if her or his father is a citizen of India at the time of his birth. If the person is born outside India after 10 December 1992, she or he would be an Indian citizen by descent if either of her or his parents is a citizen of India at the time of his birth.

The 1955 Act was amended a third time in 2003. The Citizenship Amendment Act of 2003 introduced the term “illegal migrant” who could be jailed or deported. Furthermore, it mentioned that a person born in India as prescribed shall be treated as an Indian citizen if his parent/s are not illegal migrants.

An illegal migrant[x] means a foreigner who has entered India without a valid passport or valid visa, or has entered with such valid documents but has remained in India beyond the permitted period of time.

A person who desires to be an Indian citizen but who was neither born in India nor is born to Indian citizens can apply to be an Indian citizen by registration if he/she falls under any of the following categories, provided that such person is not an illegal migrant:

  1. A person of Indian origin[xi] who is ordinarily resident in India for seven years before making an application for registration;
  2. A person of Indian origin;
  3. A person who is married to an Indian citizen and is himself/herself ordinarily resident in India for seven years before make such application;
  4. Minor children of Indian citizens;
  5. A person of full age and capacity whose parents are registered as citizens of India;
  6. A person who is registered as an overseas citizen of India and has been ordinarily resident in India for a year before making an application.

A person who is neither born in India, nor has parents who are Indian citizens and is not registered as a citizen of India can become a citizen of India by naturalisation, if:

  1. In the opinion of the Central Government, the applicant has rendered distinguished service to the cause of science, philosophy, art, literature, world peace or human progress generally; or
  2. As provided in the Third Schedule to the Act, such applicant is:
    1. Not a subject or citizen of another country wherein Indian citizens are prevented by law or practise to become citizens by naturalisation;
    2. If he is the citizen of another country:
  3. He/she has either resided in India or been in the service of a Government in India throughout a period of 12 months or less[xii] immediately preceding the application;
  4. He/she is of good character;
  5. In the 14 years immediately preceding the 12 months as stated above, he/she has been a resident in India or been in the service of a Government in India for not less than a total of 11 years;
  6. He/she has adequate knowledge of a language specified in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution of India; and
  7. If on being granted the certificate of naturalisation, he/she intends to reside in India.

The Citizenship Act was amended again in 2016. The Central Government issued two notifications in 2015 and 2016 exempting certain groups of illegal migrants from the provisions of the Foreigner’s Act of 1946 and the Passport (Entry into India) Act of 1920. These groups are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan who arrived in India on or before December 31, 2014. This implies that they would not be imprisoned or deported for lack of valid residency documents in India.

The most controversial of these amendments is the latest one. The CAA of 2019 expedites the process of obtaining Indian citizenship by naturalisation for non-Muslim religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan if they arrived in India before the 31st day of December 2014 and have been in the country for five years.[xiii]

The Indian Constitution was framed with the intention of jus soli (citizenship by birth) as the principal basis for Indian citizenship. Over time, the focus shifted to citizenship by descent. The CAA-NPR exercise will for the first time make religion the litmus test for obtaining citizenship in India.[xiv]

Constitutionality of the CAA, 2019

The proviso to Section 2 (1) (b) of the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 states as follows:

“Provided that any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014 and who has been exempted by the Central Government by or under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 (34 of 1920) or from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (31 of 1946) or any rule or order made thereunder, shall not be treated as illegal migrant for the purposes of this Act.”

It is pertinent to note two significant details from this amendment, which are as follows:

  1. It has conspicuously left out certain religious communities, including Muslims, Baha’is, Jews and atheists even though it is commonly known that Shia Muslims and Ahmadi Muslims are particularly vulnerable in Pakistan.
  2. It only includes three of the neighbouring countries, namely Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan without giving any reason for doing so when it is trite knowledge that persecution of religious minorities is a major challenge faced in many other neighbouring countries, too, including Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, Christians in Nepal and Bhutan, Tamil Hindus in Sri Lanka and atheists in Indonesia;[xv]
  3. That the latter part of this amendment has been made effective by the 2015 and 2016 amending notifications passed by the Central Government to that effect.
  4. In light of the above observations, the following issues are raised:

 

  • Whether the CAA, 2019 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?[xvi]

Article 14 of the Constitution[xvii] of India guarantees equality before law to all persons and not just citizens. The grounds on which the Citizenship Amendment Act violates Article 14 of the Constitution are as follows:

  1. By excluding Muslims, Jews, Baha’is and atheists from the purview of the CAA of 2019, the Parliament has directly discriminated against these religious communities and placed them on an unequal footing as compared to other religious minority communities from neighbouring countries.
  2. The right to equality before law is guaranteed to all persons and not just Indian citizens and, therefore, it applies to refugees fleeing religious persecution in other countries and taking refuge in India.

Bansari Kamdar, in her article published in The Diplomat[xviii], discusses how “India needs a refugee law but it does not have to be exclusionist.” India is one of the few liberal democracies in the world that is neither a party to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, nor does it have its own domestic refugee law. Therefore, the government refers to all refugees as “illegal immigrants” and the “lack of a formal legal framework, domestically and internationally, has allowed it to follow an ad hoc policy regarding refugees.”

For instance, while Tibetan refugees were allowed to form a government in exile in India, the Tamilians who immigrated to India during the Sri Lankan civil war were put in strict, heavily monitored camps. An even more hostile treatment is presently being afforded to the Rohingya Muslims who are being deported back to Myanmar.[xix]

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[xx], a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India interpreted “the procedure established by law” to mean the due process of law, i.e., the process that deprives a person of his life or personal liberty must be just, fair and reasonable.

In the words of Justices P.N. Bhagwati, N.L. Untwalia and S. Murtaza Fazal Ali:

“What is the inter-relation between Article 14 and Article 21? Does Article 21 merely require that there must be some semblance of procedure, howsoever arbitrary or fanciful, prescribed by law before a person can be deprived of his personal liberty or that the procedure must satisfy certain requisites in the sense that it must be fair and reasonable?

“… Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14. It must be ‘right and just and fair” and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied.’”

Since the CAA, 2019 does not satisfy the test of being just, fair and reasonable, this law would amount to a procedure which violates the requirements of Article 14 and consequently does not qualify to be a procedure established by law as stipulated under Article 21.

 

  • Whether the CAA, 2019 is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India

In National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and others[xxi], the then Chief Justice of India, A.N. Ahmadi C.J. held as follows:

“Our country is governed by Rule of Law. The State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human being, be he a citizen of India or otherwise.”

This public interest litigation was brought by the National Human Rights Commission in favour of the Chakma/Hajong (the “Chakmas”) tribals who were being persecuted and threatened to be forcefully driven out of Arunachal Pradesh by the All-Arunachal Pradesh Students’ Union (AAPSU).

A large number of Chakmas were displaced by the Kaptai Hydel Power Project in 1964 and had, therefore, immigrated from Bangladesh to Arunachal Pradesh. Several generations of these immigrants were now living predominantly in Arunachal Pradesh and some had moved down to parts of Assam.

The Supreme Court in the above case protected the right to life and personal liberty of the Chakmas by reinforcing what is stated in Article 21:

“No person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.”

The Gujarat High Court in Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi v. Union of India (1998)[xxii] and the Delhi High Court in Dongh Lian Kham v. Union of India (2015)[xxiii] recognised the principle of non-refoulement[xxiv] to be very much a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Gujarat High court observed in the Ktaer Abbas case (1998) as follows:

“Refugee problem is a global problem. A successive stream of humanitarian crises has high lightened the plight of the victims, as well as the threat, that large scale population movements pose to regional security, stability and prosperity. Host countries are reluctant to keep doors open for refugees. Since 1947, some about 35 -40 million people have moved across the border in the Indian Sub-Continent. India opened boundary for Tibetans, Sri Lankans Chakmas, Afghans and others. The Government of India has seen the refugees problem from a broader perspective, derived from its ancient cultural heritage.”

In para 19 of the judgment, Justice N. Mathur goes on to observe as follows:

“From the conspectus of the aforesaid, following principle emerges in the matter of enforcement of Humanitarian law:-

(1) The International Conventions and Treaties are not as such enforceable by the Government, nor they give cause of action to any party, but there is an obligation on the Government to respect them.

(2) The power of the Government to expel a foreigner is absolute.

(3) Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees right of life on Indian Soil to a non-citizen, as well, but not right to reside and settle in India.

(4) The international covenants and treaties which effectuate the fundamental rights guaranteed in our constitution can be relied upon by the Courts as facets of those fundamental rights and can be enforced as such.

(5) the work of the UNHCR being humanitarian, on certification of Refugee, the Government of India is under obligation to ensure that Refugees receive international protection until their problem is solved.

(6) The principle of 'non-refoulment' is encompassed in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the projection is available, so long as the presence of the refugee is not prejudicial to the national security.

(7) In view of directives under Article 51(c) and Article 253, international law and treaty obligations are to be respected. The Courts may apply those principles in domestic law, provided such principles are not inconsistent with domestic law.

(8) Where no construction of the domestic law is possible, Courts can give effect to international conventions and treaties by a harmonious construction.”

On the above basis, the petitioners in the instant case (the Iraqi refugees) were released from detention and were given refuge in India for the time-being.

A single bench of the Delhi High Court in Dongh Lian Kham case (2015) observed as follows:

“The principle of ‘non-refoulement,’ which prohibits expulsion of a refugee, who apprehends threat in his native country on account of his race, religion and political opinion, is required to be taken as part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as ‘non-refoulement’ affects/protects the life and liberty of a human being, irrespective of his nationality. This protection is available to a refugee but it must not be at the expense of national security.”

The court thereby granted relief to the Christian refugees from Myanmar and directed the respondents, namely the Union of India and the Foreign Regional Registration Officer, to give a fair hearing to the petitioners and consider the option of deportation to a third country, in consultation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), in the best interests of the refugees and directed that the refugees remain in India until the directions given by the Court were carried out latest by 31st March 2016.

 

  • Whether the CAA of 2019 is liable to be struck down by the Indian courts on the grounds of violating the basic structure of the Constitution of India?

Article 13 of the Constitution of India forbids the State Legislatures or the Parliament from making any law that violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. Article 13 lays down as follows:

Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights -

(1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void. 

(2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.

(3) In this article, unless the context otherwise requires, —

       (a) “law” includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law;

       (b) “laws in force” includes laws passed or made by a Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas. 

(4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368.[xxv]

However, a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India held in its landmark judgment, titled Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala [xxvi], that “the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be abrogated even by a Constitutional amendment.”

Chief Justice S.M. Sikri observed as follows:

“The learned Attorney-General said that every provision of the Constitution is essential; otherwise it would not have been put in the Constitution. This is true. But this does not place every provision of the Constitution in the same position. The true position is that every provision of the Constitution can be amended provided in the result the basic foundation and structure of the constitution remains the same. The basic structure may be said to consist of the following features:

(1) Supremacy of the Constitution;

(2) Republican and Democratic form of Government;

(3) Secular character of the Constitution;

(4) Separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary;

(5) Federal character of the Constitution.”

In the words of Justice Jagmohan Reddy:

“In this view, my conclusion is that Article 13(2) inhibits only a law made by the ordinary legislative agency and not an amendment under Article 368; that Parliament could under Article 368 amend Article 13 and also the fundamental rights, and though the power of amendment under Article 368 is wide, it is not wide enough to totally abrogate or what would amount to an abrogation or emasculating or destroying in a way as would amount to abrogation of any of the fundamental rights or other essential elements of the basic structure of the Constitution and destroy its identity.”

Therefore, as CAA of 2019 violates Part-III and consequently the basic structure of the Constitution of India, it is liable to be struck down and declared void.

Whether CAA, 2019 violates the international obligations of India

India is not a signatory to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951[xxvii] and its 1967 Protocol. The principle of non-refoulement, although formally laid down in the Refugee Convention of 1951, has now become a customary international law and is required to be followed by all states regardless of whether they have signed or acceded to any such Convention or Treaty.[xxviii]

Moreover, India is also a signatory of various other UN Treaties and Conventions, including the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 3 of the UDHR lays down that “everyone has the rights to life, liberty and security;” Article 5 states that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel or degrading treatment;” Article 6 says that “all have a right to be treated as a person in the eyes of the law;” Article 9 lays down that “no one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile;” and Article 14 declares that “everyone has a right to seek and enjoy in other countries, asylum from persecution.”

Article 7 of the ICCPR contains the provision on the right to be free from torture or other cruel, inhuman or other degrading treatment or punishment. This provision has been interpreted by the Human Rights Committee in its General Comment No. 20 to include protection against refoulement.[xxix]

India is also a signatory of the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), whose Article 3 is clearly against the return or extradition of a person “to another state where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”[xxx]

It is a mandate of the Constitution of India that the State shall endeavour to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations. Article 51 of the Constitution, which is one of the Directive Principles of State Policy, clearly envisages that the State shall endeavour to (a) promote international peace and security; (b) maintain just and honourable relations between nations; (c) foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another; and (d) encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.

What is National Register of Citizens (NRC)

After a surge in the migration of Bangladeshis to Assam during the British colonial rule and post-independence due to the partition of India, a national register of citizens was created for the first time in 1951 to document these settlers.[xxxi]

The Assam Movement or the Assam Agitation (1979-1985) was a response of the student unions in the state to the widespread influx of illegal migrants and/or insurgent groups into the country’s north-eastern territory, particularly from Bangladesh into Assam.[xxxii]

According to the 2011 census, the total population of north-east India was 46 million, out of which 31 million lived in Assam, accounting for 68 percent of the population concentrated in the state of Assam. Of those 31 million, only 50 percent spoke the Assamese language. [xxxiii]

The Assam Movement or the Assam Agitation, led by All Assam Students Union (AASU) and the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP), was a popular uprising to drive out the illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. The movement ended with the signing of the Assam Accord by leaders of AASU-AAGSP and the Government of India under PM Rajiv Gandhi. During this period of six long years of the historic movement, reportedly, 855 people (later on 860 according to AASU reports) lost their lives in the hope of an “infiltration free Assam” in the 1979-1985 Assam agitation. [xxxiv]

The Assam Accord (1985) was a Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) signed between representatives of the Government of India and the leaders of the Assam Movement in New Delhi on August 15, 1985. The fundamental aspect of the Assam Accord was: foreigners who came to Assam on or after March 25, 1971 shall continue to be detected; deleted and practical steps shall be taken to expel such foreigners.[xxxv]

Post 1985, Assam witnessed multiple changes of governments – from the Indian National Congress to the Assam Gana Parishad, and finally the Bharatiya Janata Party’s maiden entry in 2016 with Chief Minister Sarbananda Sonowal at the helm, an erstwhile member of AASU who also signed the Assam Accord.[xxxvi]

In May 2005, the then Prime Minister of India, Mr. Manmohan Singh, who also happened to be a Rajya Sabha member of Assam previously, chaired a tripartite meeting with the Centre, the Assam Government and the AASU, where an understanding was reached that steps must be taken towards updating the National Register of Citizens to fulfil the promises made in the Assam Accord. The modalities for this were approved by the Centre in consultation with the Assam Government.[xxxvii]

In July 2009, an NGO called Assam Public Works moved the Supreme Court, pleading that the names of those migrants who had not been documented should be removed from the voters’ list. The NGO requested the court to begin the NRC updation process. In August 2013, the petition came up for hearing, and in December 2013, the Supreme Court directed that the exercise to update the NRC should begin.

The actual exercise began in February 2015. The deadline of December 31, 2015, as set by the Supreme Court, was missed and since then the apex court began to monitor the entire process. The government published the first NRC list on December 31, 2017, where the number of “illegal immigrants” stood at around 3.5 million. The final revised list was released on August 31, 2019, with around 1.9 million “illegal immigrants” identified.[xxxviii]

A nationwide outcry against the NRC arose following a claim made by Home Minister Amit Shah in 2019 regarding the implementation of a nationwide NRC after the passing of the CAA.[xxxix] While the whole of India protested against the discriminatory and arbitrary nature of the CAA-NRC exercise, people from the state of Assam protested against the CAA for violating the Assam Accord of 1985.

What is NPR and how is it relevant to the CAA issue?

The CAA may lead to large scale deportations and detentions in conjunction with the government’s plan for a nation-wide National Population Register, or NPR, similar to the consequences of the National Register of Citizens, or NRC, in the state of Assam.[xl]

Under a nationwide NPR, all the people, including citizens and non-citizens who are not able to produce requisite documents, would be deemed as “illegal migrants.” However, all religious communities, except Muslims, Jews, Baha’is and atheists, will be given fast-track citizenship as per the new amendment.[xli]

The Indian Muslim community, in particular, has raised concerns about the implementation of the CAA-NRC/NPR exercise because of the problems that have arisen in Assam, wherein nearly two million people have been excluded from the NRC list. Most of those excluded are ethnic Bengalis whom the authorities now accuse of having entered the Indian territory illegally from bordering Bangladesh.[xlii]

Conclusion

It is clear that India needs a law for the protection of refugees in line with the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, mostly because of the Directives of State Policy provided in the Constitution of India to “promote international peace and security” by “maintaining just and honourable relations between nations” and “fostering respect for international law and treaty obligations” as provided under Article 51 of the charter. The refugee policy also needs to acknowledge human dignity enshrined in various other covenants and treaties of the United Nations, including the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention against Torture, all of which have been signed and ratified by India.

As opined by Bansari Kamdar in her article in The Diplomat, “India needs a refugee law but it does not have to be exclusionist.” As the CAA of 2019 is directly discriminatory against Muslims, Jews, Baha’is and atheists, it is liable to be struck down by the Indian courts. The fact that no rationale has been provided for excluding neighbouring countries witnessing religious persecutions apart from Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan also sheds light on the arbitrariness and vagueness of this law.

The CAA is not only discriminatory on the basis of religion and nationality but also violates the Assam Accord of 1985. It has been a source of misery to all, irrespective of their perspectives. Furthermore, the displacement caused by a CAA-NRC/NPR exercise is unimaginable and would be detrimental to the stability of the nation, as observed by a group of retired bureaucrats and officials in January 2020 in a report by the Human Rights Watch. The group publicly warned that a nationwide NRC process “has the scope to be employed in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, subject to local pressures and to meet specific political objectives, not to mention the unbridled scope for large-scale corruption.”[xliii]

Therefore, all in all, a new approach is needed towards the legal status of refugees fleeing religious persecution in their respective countries and taking refuge in India, bearing in mind the customary international human rights law in relation to the life, liberty, security and dignity of the individual.

Footnotes

[i] Achin Vanaik, “Citizenship Amendment Act-Who is an Indian Citizen?”, The Leaflet, September 17, 2020, https://www.theleaflet.in/citizenship-amendment-act-who-is-an-indian-citizen/

[ii] Section 2, Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.

[iii] Achin Vanaik, “Citizenship Amendment Act-Who is an Indian Citizen?”, The Leaflet, September 17, 2020, https://www.theleaflet.in/citizenship-amendment-act-who-is-an-indian-citizen/

[iv] Vanaik, “Citizenship Amendment Act”.

[v] Section 3, The Citizenship Act, 1955.

[vi] Section 4, The Citizenship Act, 1955.

[vii] Section 5, The Citizenship Act, 1955.

[viii] Section 6, The Citizenship Act, 1955.

[ix] “CAA: Changes in criteria since 1955 till date”, Outlook India, January 18, 2020, https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/caa-changes-in-criteria-since-1955-till-date/1711437

[x] Section 2(b), The Citizenship Act, 1955.

[xi] Explanation 2, Section 5, The Citizenship Act, 1955. “Of Indian origin” means any person who’s parents or either of his parents were born in undivided India or in such other territory which became part of India after the 15th day of August 1947.

[xii] Conditions apply, only allowed in special circumstances.

[xiii] Achin Vanaik, “Citizenship Amendment Act-Who is an Indian Citizen?”, The Leaflet, September 17, 2020, https://www.theleaflet.in/citizenship-amendment-act-who-is-an-indian-citizen/

[xiv] Bansari Kamdar, “Indian Refugee Policy: From Strategic Ambiguity to Exclusion?”, The Diplomat, February 3, 2020, https://thediplomat.com/2020/02/indian-refugee-policy-from-strategic-ambiguity-to-exclusion/

[xv]Brian Grim, “The Numbers of Religious Freedom”, Filmed 2013 at TEDx Via Della Conciliazione, video, 7:53 https://fabo.org/pluginfile.php/12701/course/section/2786/The%20numbers%20of%20reli-gious%20freedom%20Brian%20J.%20Grim%20at%20TEDxViadellaConciliazione.mp4

[xvi] Markandey Katju, Dhruti Kapadia, “Why the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill is unconstitutional”, The Wire, December 13, 2019, https://thewire.in/law/citizenship-amendment-bill-unconstitutional

[xvii] Article 14, Constitution of India: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India.

[xviii] Bansari Kamdar, “Indian Refugee Policy: From Strategic Ambiguity to Exclusion?”, The Diplomat, February 3, 2020,  https://thediplomat.com/2020/02/indian-refugee-policy-from-strategic-ambiguity-to-exclusion/

[xix] Bansari Kamdar , “India detains Rohingya Refugees and Plans deportation”, The Diplomat, March 22, 2021, https://thediplomat.com/2021/03/india-detains-rohingya-refugees-and-plans-deportation/

[xx] (1978) 1 SCC 248.

[xxi] (1996) 1 SCC 742.

[xxii] 1999 CriLJ 919, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1593094/

[xxiii] WP (Crl) No. 1884/2015, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/168154907/

[xxiv] Under international human rights law, the principle of non-refoulement guarantees that no one should be returned to a country where they would face torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and other irreparable harm, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Migration/GlobalCompactMigration/ThePrincipleNon-RefoulementUnderInternationalHumanRightsLaw.pdf

[xxv] Available at: https://www.constitutionofindia.net/constitution_of_india/fundamental_rights/articles/Article%2013#:~:text=(1)%20All%20laws%20in%20force,of%20such%20inconsistency%2C%20be%20void.

[xxvi] (1973) 4 SCC 225, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/257876/

[xxvii] Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10

[xxviii]Devika Nair and Sangram Chinnappa , “Refoulement, Rohingya and a Refugee Policy for India”, The Wire, April 17, 2021, https://thewire.in/government/refoulement-rohingya-and-a-refugee-policy-for-india

[xxix] Nair, Chinnappa, “Refoulement”, https://thewire.in/government/refoulement-rohingya-and-a-refugee-policy-for-india

[xxx] Nair, Chinnappa, “Refoulement”, https://thewire.in/government/refoulement-rohingya-and-a-refugee-policy-for-india

[xxxi] “Shoot the traitors: Discrimination against Muslims under India’s new citizenship policy”, Human Rights’ Watch, April 9, 2020, https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/04/09/shoot-traitors/discrimination-against-muslims-under-indias-new-citizenship-policy

[xxxii] Parag Chamuah , “A brief history of Assam, Assam Movement and the Assam Accord and the implementation of NRC-CAA”, Northeast Today – Redefining Northeast, December 23, 2019, https://www.northeasttoday.in/2019/12/23/a-brief-history-of-assam-assam-movement-assam-accord-and-the-implementation-of-nrc-caa/

[xxxiii] Chamuah, “A brief history of Assam”, https://www.northeasttoday.in/2019/12/23/a-brief-history-of-assam-assam-movement-assam-accord-and-the-implementation-of-nrc-caa/

[xxxiv] Chamuah, “A brief history of Assam”, https://www.northeasttoday.in/2019/12/23/a-brief-history-of-assam-assam-movement-assam-accord-and-the-implementation-of-nrc-caa/

[xxxv] Chamuah, “A brief history of Assam”, https://www.northeasttoday.in/2019/12/23/a-brief-history-of-assam-assam-movement-assam-accord-and-the-implementation-of-nrc-caa/

[xxxvi] Chamuah, “A brief history of Assam”, https://www.northeasttoday.in/2019/12/23/a-brief-history-of-assam-assam-movement-assam-accord-and-the-implementation-of-nrc-caa/

[xxxvii] Chamuah, “A brief history of Assam”, https://www.northeasttoday.in/2019/12/23/a-brief-history-of-assam-assam-movement-assam-accord-and-the-implementation-of-nrc-caa/

[xxxviii] Chamuah, “A brief history of Assam”, https://www.northeasttoday.in/2019/12/23/a-brief-history-of-assam-assam-movement-assam-accord-and-the-implementation-of-nrc-caa/

[xxxix] “Nationwide NRC rollout not decided yet, planned ‘right messaging’ to tackle NPR rumours: Centre”, Scroll, February 3, 2021, https://scroll.in/latest/985806/nationwide-nrc-rollout-not-decided-yet-planned-right-messaging-to-tackle-npr-rumours-centre

[xl] Kamdar, “Indian Refugee Policy”, https://thediplomat.com/2020/02/indian-refugee-policy-from-strategic-ambiguity-to-exclusion/

[xli] Kamdar, “Indian Refugee Policy”, https://thediplomat.com/2020/02/indian-refugee-policy-from-strategic-ambiguity-to-exclusion/

[xlii] “Shoot the traitors”, https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/04/09/shoot-traitors/discrimination-against-muslims-under-indias-new-citizenship-policy

[xliii] “Shoot the traitors: Discrimination against Muslims under India’s new citizenship policy”, Human Rights’ Watch, April 9, 2020, https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/04/09/shoot-traitors/discrimination-against-muslims-under-indias-new-citizenship-policy