Tuesday, January 28, 2020

CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT AND ITS CONSEQUENCES PART III



CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
PART III

VI.                WHY THIS AMENDMENT?

20.            The most burning questions right now are, “what was the reason to bring about this amendment? Why was it brought about?”.

21.            The most popular answer that is doing the rounds is that the present government is anti Muslim and thus doing everything in its power to oppress the “minorities” in this country. Let us try to understand the reasons behind bringing this amendment and what compelled or inspired the Central Government to bring about this amendment. The said reasons are very much within the public domain. However, a large section of the society has either turned a blind eye to the same or is simply ignorant about the events that transpired.

22.            From the time of partition and division of India into Pakistan and later the creation of Bangladesh in 1971, several problems were faced by those Indians that were residing in places that share the border with Pakistan or Bangladesh, and the aftermath of the same persists even to this day in those areas. The infiltration of Bangladeshis into India is a well known issue which has been prevalent right from the date of birth of Bangladesh[1]. The border states were and still are the worst hit due to this infiltration and it has wreaked havoc on the economy, culture and general well being of the native people of the states that are situated next to Bangladesh, i.e., the North Eastern Indian States, more specifically, Assam.

23.            The location of these states has made them vulnerable to the mammoth issue of infiltration of Bangladeshi nationals. Assam is bestowed with rich natural resources and forests which makes it a great resource for a country that owns it. However, During the creation of Bangladesh, Assam was not given to Bangladesh, which left the new nation disgruntled.

24.            Further, the economy of Bangladesh has been poor from its birth and has failed to improve despite nearly fifty years since its formation. The rampant unemployment and the poor standard of living drove the citizens of Bangladesh to seek respectable lives elsewhere. Thus, they started migrating to India in search of employment and better standard of living. As explained above, due to its proximity to the North Eastern Indian states, India became the sought after destination. Lakhs and lakhs of Bangladeshis migrated to India. However, the problem was that they did not seek permission from the Indian Government to enter the Indian territory. They entered illegally and settled in the North Eastern states. Further, due to the common ethnicity that Bangladeshis share with the North Eastern Indians, it was fairly easy for them to settle in these states without drawing any attention. The issue of infiltration soon became a huge issue as it disrupted the lives of the citizens of India in the North Eastern Indian states. The Bangladeshis, after infiltrating to Assam and the neighbouring states even got themselves registered as voters and purchased properties. The new found economic power of these Bangladeshis posing as Indian citizens started having adverse effects on the day to day lives of the real citizens of India in Assam and other states.

25.            Further, the Muslim population in Assam grew exponentially when compared with rest of India. Between 1971 & 1991 in Assam, the Muslim Population grew from 30.99% to 77.42%, whereas the Hindu population increased from 37.18% to 41.89% during the said period[2]. Thus, it was obvious that the Muslim population in Assam grew at such a fast pace not due to births, but due to infiltration.

26.            The above facts were reported by the Governor of Assam[3] in his report[4] which was referred to in the landmark case of Sarbhananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India[5] (henceforth referred to as “Sonowal I”). Their population rose so exponentially that the native Assamese were reduced to a minority in their own state. Similar was the situation in the neighbouring states of Assam. The culture, language, employment and general well being of the native people was in grave danger and the same caused a pressing problem to the native Assamese, which resulted in protests that turned violent resulting in deaths of several activists that fought for the rights of Assamese. Therefore, in order to check the menace of infiltration, the then Government led by Smt. Indira Gandhi, passed the controversial Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the “IMDT Act”). The object of this Act, as the title itself suggests, was to detect the Illegal Migrants that had infiltrated to Assam and conducting trial and deporting people that were declared as Illegal Migrants by the Tribunals constituted under the IMDT Act.

27.            It is relevant to mention here that, at that time, Tribunals were already established under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 (“1964 Order”), in India, to try exclusively the cases of people whose citizenship was dubious. Despite the same, the IMDT Act was enacted and made applicable only to the State of Assam. Thus, cases of citizenship that arose in Assam were to be referred only to the Tribunals established under the IMDT Act and not to Foreigners Tribunal.

28.            Further, in 1985, as the problems caused by the Illegal Migrants continued to persist, the same was reported to the Central Government and after much deliberation, the then Government led by Sri. Rajiv Gandhi entered into the Assam Accord, 1985 with the leaders of Assam movement. The Assam Accord strove to protect the rights of the Assamese by promising to take several measures to check the issue of infiltration and detection & deportation of Bangladeshi nationals. Several measures such as fencing the borders that the Indian states shared with Bangladesh; maintaining a register of births and deaths of citizens; issuance of citizenship certificate only by the Central Government, after due verification of the citizenship of the people etc. It was also provided in the said Accord that a committee would be formed that would comprise Assamese, to deliberate over the aforementioned measures and to implement the same. The signing of Assam Accord, 1985 made the Assamese heave a collective sigh of relief, as they believed that the same would put an end to their ordeal, but much to their dismay, nothing came through, as the Committee was never formed! The Committee was finally formed only very recently after the Modi Government came to power. Thus, for nearly thirty (30) years, the Assam Accord remained only on paper and nothing materialised.

29.            Coming back to the IMDT Act, the people of Assam soon realised that the IMDT Act was a bane disguised as a boon. Under the IMDT Act, the Complainant (State Government) had to prove that the suspected person was not a citizen of India. Ideally, it would be easier to direct the suspected person to produce his credentials to prove his citizenship rather than expecting the State Government to prove that the person is not a citizen of India. This is just an example. Several such needless and meaningless and harmful procedures were prescribed which only caused more delay in detection and declaration of persons as illegal migrants. As per the report submitted by the Assam State Government in 2005, the number of cases registered under the IMDT Act up to the year 2000 were 3,86,249. However, the number of cases where the persons reported were declared as illegal migrants was a shockingly small number of 11,636. It is hereby clarified that the cases were not disposed off after holding a full trial. They were dismissed on the ground of mere technicalities.

30.            Also, under the IMDT Act, any individual could report about an illegal Migrant. However, if the case against the alleged Illegal Migrant was dismissed, then the individual that lodged the complaint would be penalised! Due to this, many citizens, although they knew that their neighbours were Illegal Migrants, stayed mum due to the fear of being penalised. Thus, the IMDT Act generated fear and not relief in the minds of Assamese. Although the State Government detected the illegal migrants, due to the draconian provisions of the IMDT Act, the said people were let scot free. Instead of protecting the interests of the citizens of India, the IMDT Act protected the interests of Illegal Migrants, which is ultra vires the constitution. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court struck down the controversial IMDT Act in Sonowal I judgment and directed that the cases that were pending before the IMDT Tribunals shall stand transferred to Foreigners Tribunals and the authorities were given permission to initiate fresh action against suspected persons, who cases were dismissed on grounds of technicality.

31.            The Central Government, thereafter, amended the 1964 Order and passed the Foreigners (Tribunals for Assam) Order, 2006, popularly known as the 2006 Order, feigning to comply with the directions issued under the Sonowal I case. The said amendment was also made applicable only to the State of Assam. However, again, the 2006 Order was counter productive, as it was basically a twin of IMDT Act. Aggrieved by the same, in 2006, the Petitioner Mr. Sarbhananda Sonowal again knocked the doors of Supreme Court. After hearing both parties, the Supreme Court on 05.12.2006 while allowing the petition[6] came down heavily upon the Central Government and condemned its act, rather the omission, to comply with its directions. The Supreme Court further remarked that the Central Government[7] failed to comply with these directions as it lacked the will.

32.            It is not hard to understand as to why the UPA government refrained from taking any definitive action against the Illegal Migrants. The Illegal Migrants were a strong vote bank to the UPA government[8]. Thus, nothing mattered more than votes, even if it was at the cost of lives and well being of citizens of India. Thus, the Supreme Court allowed the Petition and quashed the 2006 order and directed the Central Government again to comply with the directions issued by it in Sonowal I.

33.            This was the scenario in Assam, that was caused by the Bangladeshis. However, the question still persists that, if the infiltration has been causing so much problem, why is the Government granting citizenship to the very same people? It is relevant to note the difference between two terms, viz., an Illegal Migrant and a Refugee. An Illegal Migrant is a person who intentionally migrates to another country in search of a job or job prospects, however, without the permission of the country that he is entering. Thus, the reason for his migration is mainly monetary. However, a Refugee is a person who is forced to leave his country due to war, natural disaster or persecution or fear of persecution faced by him on religious grounds and fearing for his and his family’s safety, he leaves his country and seeks refuge in another country. The present Amendment to the Citizenship Act, seeks to grant citizenship to “Refugees” as they were driven out of their country through persecution.

34.            Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh have declared themselves to be “Islamic” states. Thus, it goes without saying that the population majorly consists of Muslims. Thus the chances of persecution of Muslims in an Islamic state is quite less. It is relevant to mention here that several acts of violence were committed on the people belonging to other religions such as Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Parsi and Christian.

35.            In Pakistan, Gurudwaras were destroyed. Churches were destructed or bombed. Temples were destructed and many people belonging to the aforesaid religions were simply killed. Hindu, Sikh and Christian girls are routinely forcibly converted to Islam and are abducted and their whereabouts are not known to their family members. The more recent incident of ex-Pakistani cricketer Danish Kaneria, opening up about the discrimination he faced in the team, due to his religion, show that the issue of discrimination and persecution in Pakistan, is real.

36.            In Afghanistan, the condition of Non Muslims was deplorable. During the reign of Taliban, women were made to wear Burqas whenever they stepped out of the house, even though they did not practise Islam. However, non muslim women had to wear burqas of a different colour so that it was easier for others to know that they were not Muslims and could maintain distance from them. Each non Muslim house had to hoist a yellow cloth on their house to signify that the members of that house were not Muslims. Non Muslim girls between the ages of 8 and 17 were publicly raped as recently as in 2001. Many Buddha Statues and stupas were destroyed. Two Buddha statues which were built during the Pre-Islamic era were also destroyed despite appeals being made not to destroy them, by United Nations Organisation and many Islamic countries.

37.            As far as Bangladesh is concerned, there were mass killings and rapes of those that did not practise Islam. As recently as in 2019, eight (8) house belonging to Non Muslims were set on fire. Several Temples and statues were vandalised. This has been the situation of people belonging to religions other than Islam in these three countries. Unable to lead respectable and normal lives, and further, fearing their lives, these people were forced to leave their countries and seek refuge in India. However, due to the fact that they were not citizens of India, they were unable to get jobs, unable to provide education to their children, unable to own a house and many other things such as this that made their lives miserable. They could not go back to their countries nor could they live dignified lives here. Thus, to put an end to their ordeal and for the untold miseries that they were suffering due to no fault of their own, the present Government thought it fit to bring about this amendment. By granting citizenship to these innocent persecuted people, the Government is merely granting them dignity and equal opportunity, which is precisely what is promised under the Constitution of India.

38.            The allegation that the latest amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955, affects the lives of citizens of India, more particularly, that of Indian Muslims is baseless and misconceived. The Citizenship Act, 1955, does not regulate the lives of people after they become citizens of India. The Citizenship Act comes into picture when a person has to be registered as a citizen or when he wants to give up his Indian citizenship. The period between that is not regulated by the Act. All the municipal laws will apply to any person that becomes a citizen of India. Thus, the argument that the Indian Muslims are in grave danger, or that their citizenship is in danger, due to this amendment, is ludicrous. Any person that has taken the effort to read the Citizenship (Amendment) Act will know that these allegations are being made with the sole purpose of undermining the efforts taken by the present government. If these protestors and activists are supporting the cause of minorities, then they should be supporting the Citizenship Amendment Act! Merely because the minorities in question right now are not Muslims, does not make the Amendment anti Muslim. This amendment is about protecting the rights of minorities of three neighbouring countries rather than causing harm to anybody, much less those that are already the citizens of India, irrespective of their religion.

39.            At the cost of repetition, it is again clarified that there is no bar on Muslims of the said three countries from applying for citizenship of India. They need to follow the same rules that were provided in the Citizenship Act, 1955, i.e., they should have resided for a period of eleven years in India before making an application and should not be illegal migrants and such other conditions which have been explained in detail in the previous parts of this article series.

40.            As regards the issue of National Register of Citizens, more popularly known by its abbreviation, the NRC, the same is yet to be introduced. The exercise of NRC, as of now is prevalent only in Assam and there is a proposal to enforce it all over India. However, the opposition is spreading baseless rumours about what NRC is and how it will be executed. Even otherwise, for the sake of discussion, NRC is merely the exercise of keeping a record of the births and deaths of citizens. In this way, the menace of Illegal Migrants will be further reduced. An in-depth discussion can be had as and when NRC is introduced.


I.                CONCLUSION:

41.            Thus, in my opinion, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, is constitutional and does not, in any way, affect the rights of those that are already citizens, much less Indian Muslims. The amendment in question is all about granting citizenship to a specific class of people and not about stripping off anyone of their citizenship.

42.            As a parting note, I would like to mention about Article 44 of the Constitution, which reads, “State shall endeavour to provide for its citizens a uniform civil code (UCC) throughout the territory of India”. So, when the next momentous bill will be presented by this Government, we can be rest assured that same will also be within the framework of the Constitution!

JAI HIND

Vaishnavi Naik
Advocate
Bangalore




[1] 26th March, 1971
[2] As reported by the Directorate of Census, Government of India
[3] Lt. General S.K. Sinha (Retd.), former Deputy Chief of Army Staff
[4] Report dated 08.11.1998
[5] 2005(5)SCC655
[6] Sarbhananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India reported in (2007) 1 SCC 174
[7] UPA Government
[8] Right from 1950 till now, except for fifteen years, that too, in scattered periods, Indian National Congress has been in power (for nearly 55 years), in Assam.

Monday, January 27, 2020

CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT AND ITS CONSEQUENCES - PART - II


CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

PART - II

 IV.          WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS OF A CITIZEN?

11.            Any person that becomes a citizen of India through any of the four methods mentioned in the previous section (part I of this series), is entitled to certain rights which are available only to him and not to any person who is not a citizen of India. The fundamental rights enumerated in Article 19 of the Constitution[1] are available to all citizens of India, subject to reasonable restrictions. Further, the citizens have the most valuable ‘right to vote’. Only citizens are entitled to hold posts/offices in the government or to contest in elections and such other rights. Article 19 of the Constitution begins with the words, “All citizens shall have the right - …”. Thus, there is a clear exclusion of non citizens/aliens.

12.            However, Articles 14[2] and 21[3] which are Right to Equality & Right to Life respectively, are available to all persons, irrespective of whether they are citizens or aliens (non citizens). Thus, the same law will apply to all persons as long as they are within the territory of India. However, much more rights are available only to citizens. Aliens have no right to even seek for such rights or protest against non availability thereof.

13.            So, what then, does the Constitution guarantee to an alien under Articles 14 & 21? The Constitution guarantees that no harm will be caused to their lives while they are in the Indian territory and they shall have the right to be treated with the basic respect and dignity that each human being is entitled to. Thus, these rights are gifts bestowed upon the aliens by the Constitution and they cannot expect more than this, such as right to express their opinion on the happenings in the nation or to move wherever they wish, within the country, without proper permission from the concerned authorities etc.

14.            Without knowing the rights available to these aliens, it would be absurd to comment on the recent amendment of the Citizenship Act, 1955. With this in the background, let us try to understand the 2019 amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955.

V.                THE 2019 AMENDMENT TO THE CITIZENSHIP ACT, 1955

15.            It would be most pertinent to understand the amendment that was brought about to the Citizenship Act, 1955, before discussing about its consequences.

16.            Any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered India on or before 31.12.2014 shall not be treated as an Illegal Migrant, subject to other applicable laws.

17.            Further, for the persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, to be able to apply for citizenship through naturalisation, the total period of residence in India has been relaxed to five (5) years from eleven (11) years. Thus, for the persons mentioned above, the minimum period of residence in India should be five (5) years, before they can apply for grant of citizenship of India[4].

18.            The word “Muslims” is conspicuously absent in the recent amendment and that is what has caused the unrest in the country.

19.            Now let us try to understand what are the conditions to be complied with, if a person belonging to any of the communities in any of the three countries mentioned above, wishes to be registered as a citizen of India.

a.     Firstly, the rule is applicable only to those people coming from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan;

b.     Secondly, the said persons should belong to any one of the communities mentioned above and not to any other community; (Hindu/Sikh/Buddhist/Jain/Parsi/Christian)

c.     If people falling into the categories (a) & (b) mentioned above have entered India before 31.12.2014, then, even though they have entered India illegally, shall not be treated as Illegal Migrants and would be eligible to be registered as citizens of India (Subject to the relevant provisions of Foreigners Act, 1946 and Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920). 

d.  However, nothing in the Act or in the latest amendment bars Muslims from Afghanistan or Bangladesh or Pakistan from applying for citizenship of India through naturalisation, if the said person has complied with the conditions explained earlier (in part 1 of this series), i.e., he should not be an illegal migrant and he should have ordinarily resided in India for eleven years and he should be of good character etc.

e.     Further, the relaxation provided above does not apply to people of the aforesaid communities if they come from any country other than Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan. Thus, for instance, a person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community coming from Nepal or Bhutan would still have to comply with the general rules as provided under the Citizenship Act, 1955.

f.     Most importantly, this amendment has no effect on people that are already citizens of India, whether by birth or descent or registration or naturalisation. Thus, as on the date of amendment, if a person (belonging to any religion) is a citizen of India, he is not affected by the same.

20.            Further, the Central Government has the power to frame law/s relating to grant or termination of citizenship, under Article 11 of the Constitution and in exercise of the said power, the Central Government brought about this amendment, which was passed by both Houses. The bill was passed on 12.12.2019 and came into effect from 10.01.2020. Thus the entire process has been within the framework of the Constitution and the Central Government has not overstepped its authority in framing or bringing into effect, the instant amendment.
---



[1] (a) freedom of speech and expression; (b) freedom to assemble peacefully and without arms; (c) freedom to form associations or unions or co-operative societies; (d) freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India; (e) freedom to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and “(f)” was omitted (g)freedom to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.)
[2]Equality before Law. – The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
[3]Protection of life and personal liberty. – No person shall be deprived of his life or his personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
[4] Explained at Para III(d)(iii) of Part I of this article series

Sunday, January 26, 2020

CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT AND ITS CONSEQUENCES - PART - I


CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

PART - I

I.                INTRODUCTION:

1.               The recent amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955[1] caused a furore in the country or so it seemed. Many felt that the amendment singled out Muslims and that it only showed the ‘intolerant attitude’ of the present Government and was the result of its heavy bias against Muslims. In this article, the writer strives to decode and explain the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and the recent amendment that was brought about to the said Act.

II.                A BRIEF HISTORY:

2.               Before adverting to the amendment to the Citizenship Act and its consequences, it is necessary to have a basic understanding of the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the “Constitution”) that deals with Citizenship and also the provisions of The Citizenship Act, 1955.

3.               Part II of the Constitution which contains Articles 5 to 11 is titled “Citizenship”.  The said Articles give a brief explanation of citizenship; define who is a citizen and the rights of a citizen. It is necessary to understand that the Constitution of India was enacted soon after India got independence. However, the joy of independence was short lived as the horror of partition followed. So, when the Constitution was being framed, the framers had the herculean task of framing rules to detect and recognise who is and who is not a citizen of India. Due to the partition, all those parts which were once part of India, became a new country over night and the residents were forced to flee. And it is a matter of common knowledge that there was huge displacement of people from their native land. This situation posed a great challenge to the framers of Constitution.

4.               Thus, besides providing for the general rules to define citizenship, India faced the challenge of making exceptions and guidelines to retain the citizenship or grant citizenship to several people who chose to stay or chose to return to India, after creation of Pakistan.

5.               Therefore, it was provided in the Constitution that, if any person migrated to India before 19.07.1948, he/she[2] would be deemed to be a citizen of India. However, a person could be registered as a citizen of India even if he migrated to India on or after 19.07.1948 provided he resided in India for at least six (6) months immediately before making an application to the concerned authority seeking to register him as a citizen of India.

6.               Other than what is mentioned above, the Constitution has recognised other modes in which a person could become a citizen of India. The same are provided for in greater detail in the Citizenship Act, 1955 and will be dealt with at a later stage, to the extent they are relevant in understanding the latest amendment to the Citizenship Act.

7.               Articles 5 to 11 of the Constitution give a broad outline of the concept of “Citizenship” and more specifically, Article 11 empowers the Parliament to make laws with respect to acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other incidental matters thereto. It is under the power granted in this Article that the Central Government enacted the Citizenship Act, 1955. Thus, the Citizenship Act provides for all matters pertaining to citizenship of India.

The same are briefly explained hereinbelow.

III.                WHO IS A CITIZEN OF INDIA?

8.               The Citizenship Act, 1955, read with Articles 5 to 11 of the Constitution, recognises four (4) types through which people can become citizens of India. They are as follows;

(a)   Citizenship by birth[3]: As on the date of commencement of the Constitution of India[4], any person that was domiciled[5] in India and born in India, is a citizen by birth. However, it is not to be confused that citizenship would be granted to only those who were born after the constitution came into force. It only means that a person is considered as a “citizen of India” on and from the date of commencement of Constitution if he was born in India. Further, at the time of a child’s birth in India, one or both of his parents should be citizens of India and if only one parent is an Indian, the other parent should not be an illegal migrant[6] at the time of his birth.

There are however, exceptions to this rule. Since they are not relevant to the present topic, they are not dealt with herein.

(b)  Citizenship By Descent[7]: A person although born outside India can still be a citizen of India under the following circumstances:

                           i.          He is born after 26.01.1950 and before 10.12.1992 and his father is a citizen of India at the time of his birth;

                         ii.          He is born after 10.12.1992 and either his father or his mother is a citizen of India at the time of his birth.
However, if the said person’s father has also become a citizen by descent, then the said person cannot be considered a citizen of India unless his birth is registered at the Indian consulate within one year from the date of his birth or his father was a government servant serving under the Indian government at the time of his birth.

(c)   Citizenship by registration[8]: A person may be registered as a citizen of India even though he is not born in India, if he falls under any of the following categories while making an application seeking citizenship of India, provided he is not an illegal migrant:

                           i.          A person who is of Indian origin[9] and is ordinarily resident in India for seven (7) years before making such application for registration;

                         ii.          A person of Indian origin who is ordinarily resident in any country or place outside undivided India;

                       iii.          A person (major) who is married to an Indian citizen and is ordinarily resident in India for seven (7) years before making such application;

                       iv.          Minor children of persons who are citizens of India;

                         v.          A person (major) whose parents are registered as citizens of India under Sl. No. (i) mentioned hereinabove;

                       vi.          A person (major) or either of his parents who were earlier citizens of independent India and is ordinarily resident in India for twelve months immediately before making such an application;

                     vii.          A person (major) who is registered as an Overseas Citizen of India for five (5) years and who is ordinarily resident in India for twelve (12) months immediately before making such an application.

Thus, to be registered as a citizen under this category, the person applying should have some connection to India, either through blood or through matrimony.

(d)  Citizenship by naturalisation[10]: A person who is not an illegal migrant can be registered as a citizen of India under this category, provided he complies with the following conditions:

                          i.          That the country to which the said person belongs to, permits Indian Citizens to be registered as its citizens through naturalisation. (Thus, if any country prevents Indian citizens from becoming the citizens of that country by naturalisation, then a citizen of such country cannot apply for citizenship of India or his application will not be allowed and he will not be registered as a citizen of India through naturalisation);

                        ii.          That the said person undertakes to renounce the citizenship of the country that he is holding, if he is granted citizenship of India[11];

                      iii.          That prior to making such application, he has resided in India or has been in the service of Government in India or both, for a period of fourteen years and the total duration of his residence in India/his service in the government comes up to not less than eleven (11) years. After the completion of the said period of fourteen years, he should have resided in India continuously for a period of (12) months immediately before making such an application; (Thus, a non citizen of India, should have resided in India for not less than twelve (11+1) years immediately before making such an application)

                      iv.           The said person should be of good character;

                        v.          The said person should have adequate knowledge of any one of the native languages of India;

                      vi.          The said person should intend to reside in India or serve under any government in India or work under an international organisation of which India is a member or under a society, company or body of persons established in India.

However, the Central Government has the power and discretion to relax the aforementioned time periods while granting citizenship to persons through naturalisation.
Thus, to be registered as a citizen under this classification, it is not necessary for the person to have any Indian connection. Thus a person of any country may become the citizen of India, if he wishes, provided he complies with the above conditions.

9.               What is relevant to note here is that, the pre-condition for any person to apply for citizenship is that he should not be an Illegal Migrant.

10.            The recent amendment that was brought about affects the last category explained hereinabove, i.e., citizenship by naturalisation. The said aspect will be dealt with at a later stage.


To be continued…


Vaishnavi



[1] Citizenship Act, 1955 was amended on 12.12.2019 and came into effect on and from 10.01.2020
[2] Henceforth, in this article, mention of masculine gender includes feminine gender, unless specifically stated otherwise. Thus, if the words “he” or “his” or “him” are referred to, it shall mean and include “she”, “hers” or “her” as the context may require. Drawing an analogy from Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897
[3] Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955
[4] 26.01.1950
[5] The country that a person treats as their permanent home, or lives in and has a substantial connection with.
[6] A person that has entered India without a valid passport/other valid travel documents; or has entered India with valid travel documents but has stayed beyond the permitted time. (Section 2(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955)
[7] Section 4 of the Citizenship Act, 1955
[8] Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1955
[9] For instance, a child that is born outside India is considered a person of Indian origin, if one or both his parents or any of his grandparents are citizens of India.
[10] Section 6 read with Schedule III of the Citizenship Act, 1955
[11] India does not recognise dual citizenship