Citizenship in India: From Constitution to CAA 2019 and the 2024 Rules

Abstract

In India, citizenship is more than a formal legal identity—it signifies the connection between the state and its people, encompassing rights, duties, and civic responsibilities. The Constitution, through Articles 5 to 11, provides the framework for determining citizenship at independence and authorises Parliament to legislate further on the subject. The founding vision was inclusive and secular, with leaders in the Constituent Assembly emphasising domicile and residence as the guiding principles rather than religion.

Since its enactment, the Citizenship Act of 1955 has been amended several times to respond to migration pressures, demographic changes, and security concerns. Reforms such as the creation of Overseas Citizenship of India and restrictions on citizenship by birth highlight India’s evolving stance on nationality. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019, introduced a significant shift by extending citizenship to persecuted non-Muslim minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, while constitutional safeguards continue for sensitive regions. The Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024, later formalised the process of application, verification, and naturalisation.

While the CAA, 2019, has triggered debate about equality, secularism, and religious freedom, it also represents India’s discretionary use of citizenship as a humanitarian tool. Its linkages with the NRC and NPR highlight the administrative and social complexities of implementation. Overall, India’s citizenship framework reflects a balance between constitutional principles, social realities, and policy choices—aiming at inclusivity, administrative clarity, and social stability.

Keywords: Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, National Register of Citizens (NPR), National Population Register (NPR), Citizenship Rules, 2024, Illegal Migrants in India, Freedom of Religion in India

Introduction: Citizenship Law in India

Citizenship in India is more than a legal status that establishes the relationship between an individual and the state. It forms the foundation of the rights, duties, and privileges granted to people within the country. The constitutional framework for citizenship in India is set out in Articles 5 to 11, which came into force with the Constitution on 26 January 1950. These provisions determined who would be considered citizens at the commencement of the Constitution and empowered Parliament to regulate citizenship through subsequent laws. Unlike some nations where citizenship is determined purely by birth or descent, India follows a combination of both principles, supplemented by naturalisation and registration provisions. Over the years, citizenship laws have evolved significantly, particularly in response to historical migrations, partition, and regional conflicts.

According to legal scholar Hans Kelsen, citizenship is a legal status defined by certain rights and duties. In simple terms, being a citizen means having recognised rights and privileges within a political community. Citizenship is possible only when there is an organised political body created to promote the welfare and rights of its members. Those who accept the authority of this body are not just subjects under a ruler with no say, but citizens who can take part in its functioning and benefit from its administration.

Citizenship in Constituent Assembly:

The question of citizenship was one of the most sensitive issues before the Constituent Assembly, unfolding in the immediate aftermath of Partition and mass migrations. Members were divided between those advocating a secular, uniform standard and those seeking preferential treatment for displaced Hindus and Sikhs.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, as Chairman of the Drafting Committee, insisted that citizenship must rest on objective criteria such as domicile and residence, not on religious identity. Jawaharlal Nehru similarly emphasised equality and warned against embedding communal distinctions into the Constitution. Others, like P.S. Deshmukh, argued that Hindus and Sikhs required special recognition given their historic ties to India.

The compromise reached in Articles 5 to 11 reflected this tension. These provisions secured citizenship for persons domiciled in India, certain migrants from Pakistan, and returning residents under permit schemes, while authorising Parliament to legislate comprehensively in the future. The debates thus balanced immediate humanitarian concerns with the long-term goal of a secular, democratic polity.

Evolution of Citizenship Law (1955-2015):

Enacted under the authority of Article 11, the Citizenship Act, 1955, serves as the principal legislation regulating the conferment and cessation of Indian citizenship. Over time, it has undergone several amendments responding to political shifts, demographic trends, and security considerations.

• 1986 Amendment: Citizenship by birth, initially broad, was narrowed considerably. Persons born in India from 26 January 1950 until 1 July 1987 acquired citizenship by birth if either parent was an Indian citizen. For those born thereafter, citizenship required that one parent be Indian and the other not classified as an illegal migrant.
• 1992 Amendment: Citizenship by descent was made gender-neutral, ensuring that children born abroad could acquire nationality through either parent, not solely the father.
• 2003 Amendment: Introduced the category of Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) for certain persons of Indian origin. Citizenship by birth after 3 December 2004 was further restricted, generally requiring both parents to be citizens or legal residents. This amendment also laid the legislative groundwork for the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
• 2005 Amendment: Broadened provisions for citizenship by registration and naturalisation, easing access for categories such as foreign spouses of Indian citizens.
• 2015 Amendment: Merged the separate Person of Indian Origin (PIO) and OCI categories into a single OCI framework, simplifying the legal status of overseas Indians.

Collectively, these changes illustrate a movement away from expansive birth-based citizenship toward a more regulated, residence- and descent-based model, while also institutionalising stronger engagement with the Indian diaspora. This trajectory paved the way for the more controversial Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019, which introduced religion as a statutory criterion.

The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019, enacted on 12 December 2019, introduced some of the most far-reaching changes to India’s citizenship framework since independence. It amended the Citizenship Act, 1955, with the aim of providing relief to migrants facing religious persecution in neighbouring countries.

The foremost feature of the amended Act is its religion-specific and country-specific approach to naturalisation. The statute identifies six religious groups—Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians—from the neighbouring states of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, who entered India before 31 December 2014, and stipulates that they shall not be considered illegal migrants. These persons are thereby permitted to apply for citizenship by way of registration or naturalisation. Earlier, every undocumented migrant was uniformly treated as an illegal entrant and barred from such applications.

Another major change relates to the residency requirement for naturalisation. Under the previous rules, a foreign national had to reside in India for 11 of the last 14 years to qualify. The CAA, 2019 reduces this period to 5 years for the specified groups, creating a fast-track pathway to citizenship.

However, the Act also excludes applicability. It does not extend to tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura protected under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, nor to areas under the Inner Line Permit (ILP) regime established by the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873. These exclusions were introduced in response to strong opposition from indigenous and tribal communities in the North-East, who feared demographic change and cultural erosion.

Procedural and Legal Changes

In line with the Statement of Objects and Reasons, the Act also introduced several important administrative and procedural changes:

• Many of the migrants covered under the Act had been living in India without valid travel documents. Earlier government notifications in 2015 and 2016 had already exempted them from prosecution under the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and the Foreigners Act, 1946. The Amendment Act reinforced this protection, ensuring that pending or past legal proceedings relating to their “illegal migrant” status would not prevent them from applying for citizenship.
• The Act allows the government to grant citizenship retrospectively, as long as other conditions under Section 5 (registration) or Section 6 (naturalisation) are met.
• Additionally, the Act amended Section 7D of the Citizenship Act, empowering the Central Government to cancel an OCI card if the cardholder violates any provision of the Citizenship Act or any other applicable laws. At the same time, it ensures fairness by requiring that the OCI cardholder must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before cancellation.

Proponents and Opponents:

Proponents of the Act argue that it provides humanitarian relief to religious minorities facing persecution in neighbouring Islamic-majority nations. They see it as a moral responsibility of India to shelter communities historically and culturally connected with the Indian subcontinent.

On the other hand, opponents contend that the exclusion of Muslims violates the secular fabric of the Constitution and undermines the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14. They also point out that limiting the Act’s scope to only three neighbouring countries, while excluding groups like Sri Lankan Tamils and Tibetan Buddhists, raises concerns about consistency, fairness, and the selective application of humanitarian principles.

Thus, the Citizenship Amendment Act is more than a routine amendment, it redefines Indian citizenship by explicitly linking it to religious identity and specific geopolitical considerations. Its selective inclusions and exclusions have sparked significant constitutional debates, particularly regarding equality (Article 14), freedom of religion (Articles 25–28), and India’s commitment to secularism as stated in the Preamble. These debates have led to multiple legal challenges in the Supreme Court, with petitioners arguing that the Act threatens the basic structure of the Constitution. Examining the relevant constitutional provisions and judicial principles is essential to understand the validity of these claims.

Constitutional Provisions and Legal Validity

Since the Citizenship Amendment Act was passed, more than two hundred petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging its constitutionality. The primary concern among opponents is that the Act uses religion as a criterion for granting citizenship. While it provides relief to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, it excludes Muslims and other groups such as Sri Lankan Tamils and Tibetan Buddhists. Critics argue that this violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection under the law. They contend that the Act creates an arbitrary classification that fails the test of “reasonable classification,” which requires any legal grouping to have a clear rationale and a direct connection to its purpose.

Apart from Article 14, opponents also highlight Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty. They assert that by leaving out certain communities, the Act risks making some refugees stateless or vulnerable to detention, which threatens their dignity and safety. Another important point is that the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion under Articles 25 to 28, and secularism has been recognised as part of the “basic structure” of the Constitution by the Supreme Court in the S.R. Bommai vs Union of India, 1994 AIR 1918. Opponents therefore argue that by bringing religion into the question of citizenship, the CAA weakens India’s secular foundation.

Despite these challenges, the Act remains in force. This is due to a principle known as the “presumption of constitutionality,” which means that laws passed by Parliament are considered valid until the courts rule otherwise. Article 13 empowers the judiciary to strike down laws that violate fundamental rights, but until such a decision is made, the law continues to operate. Since the Supreme Court has not stayed the CAA since its enactment in 2019, the government has proceeded with the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024, facilitating the full implementation of the Act. This approach is not unprecedented; historically, several controversial laws have been enforced while legal challenges were still pending. For instance, in the Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala case (AIR 1973 SC 1461), amendments to the Constitution were operational until the Court delivered its judgment. Similarly, laws on preventive detention during the Emergency remained in effect until the judiciary ruled on their validity. The same principle applies to the CAA today: Parliament has passed it, the government is implementing it, and the Supreme Court will finally decide if it is constitutional.

In short, the CAA remains valid unless the Supreme Court rules against it. This shows how India’s constitutional system works: Parliament makes laws, the executive carries them out, and the judiciary has the final say on whether those laws meet constitutional standards. The next question, then, is how the Act and the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024 have been put into practice, and what administrative steps the government has taken while the Court continues to hear the constitutional challenge.

Administrative and Legal Developments

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019, passed in December 2019, came into effect only after the government notified the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024 on 11 March 2024. These rules amend the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and specify the procedure for granting citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who entered India before 31 December 2014.

Rule 10A introduces new application forms depending on the category of applicant—for example, Form IIA for persons of Indian origin, Form IIIA for foreign spouses, Form IVA for minor children, and Form VIIIA for applicants under Section 6B. Applicants must provide supporting documents listed in Schedules IA–IC, an affidavit from an Indian citizen vouching for their character, and proof of knowledge of an Eighth Schedule language. They must also declare that they will renounce their existing citizenship once Indian citizenship is granted.

Applications follow a two-stage process under Rule 11A: submission and verification by the District Level Committee (including the oath of allegiance), followed by a decision from the Empowered Committee. Rule 13A authorises the Empowered Committee to assess whether the applicant is “fit and proper.” If approved, digitally signed certificates are issued under Rules 14 and 15, with the option of physical copies. Rule 38 clarifies that the oath of allegiance is valid only when administered by a designated District Committee officer.

The rules aim to digitise and standardise the process, but critics note that by retaining religion as an eligibility criterion, the framework raises constitutional questions currently before the Supreme Court.

Interlinking of CAA with NRC and NPR

While the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019, officially targets specific groups of migrants from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, its wider implications cannot be considered in isolation. Much of the debate around the Act is intertwined with two other citizenship-related exercises: the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the National Population Register (NPR).

The NRC is intended to document all legal citizens of India. Its most prominent implementation occurred in Assam, where residents were asked to prove their citizenship with historical records. Nearly 19 lakh people were excluded, raising serious concerns about statelessness and large-scale disenfranchisement. The NPR, meanwhile, is a nationwide data-gathering exercise meant to create a comprehensive database of all residents. Critics worry that it could serve as a first step toward a nationwide NRC, providing a baseline list that authorities might later use to scrutinize citizenship.

In this context, the CAA takes on added significance. If a nationwide NRC were conducted, people unable to provide sufficient documentation could face exclusion. For non-Muslim migrants from the three specified countries, the CAA acts as a legal safety net, allowing them to claim citizenship even without documents. Muslims, however, have no such pathway, fuelling fears of unequal treatment and religious discrimination. While the government has clarified that there is no plan for a nationwide NRC and that the CAA should not be linked to it, the overlap in public discussion has created widespread anxiety, particularly among minority communities.

Religious Classification and International Legal Norms

The Act’s exclusion of Muslims raises important constitutional questions under Articles 14 and 15, which guarantee equality and prohibit discrimination. Critics warn that if combined with a nationwide NRC, non-Muslims could secure citizenship while Muslims might be left vulnerable, potentially rendering some stateless.

Opponents also highlight issues under Articles 25–28, which protect freedom of religion, and argue that the explicit use of religion as a criterion weakens India’s secular foundation. The United Nations Human Rights Office has described the CAA as “fundamentally discriminatory” and cautioned that it may conflict with India’s obligations under international human rights treaties like the ICCPR and ICERD.

India’s Position on the 1951 Refugee Convention

India has not acceded to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol. As a result, the country relies on its own legal provisions and administrative decisions to manage refugees, which has led to an uneven system of protection. For instance, Tibetan and certain Afghan groups have been granted recognition and support, while others—such as the Rohingya—have been excluded.

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) makes this selective approach more formal by offering a pathway to citizenship for specific non-Muslim communities from neighbouring states. Unlike the Refugee Convention, which requires protection regardless of faith, the CAA reflects a domestically driven policy framework where national discretion is placed above universal refugee rights.

Implications for Governance and Social Cohesion

The interplay between the CAA, the National Register of Citizens (NRC), and the National Population Register (NPR) brings with it a series of administrative and societal challenges:

1. Implementation depends on document checks, verification processes, and inter-agency coordination. Although the 2024 Citizenship (Amendment) Rules promote digitisation, concerns remain about whether rural and border regions have the institutional capacity to cope.
2. The explicit use of religion as a basis for eligibility has the potential to deepen communal divisions and escalate social polarisation.
3. The Act prompts a constitutional debate on the limits of parliamentary authority vis-à-vis constitutional guarantees. The Supreme Court’s decision will ultimately influence how citizenship, secularism, and equality are interpreted in Indian jurisprudence.
4. India’s selective recognition of refugees stands apart from prevailing international human rights standards, which could affect its image in global institutions.
5. By tying citizenship to religious identity, the Act underlines India’s reliance on a domestic framework shaped by policy choices rather than international norms—leaving unresolved questions of constitutionality and social cohesion.

Conclusion

The evolution of citizenship law in India reflects the nation’s ongoing efforts to balance inclusivity, security, and social cohesion. While the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019, has sparked debate due to its religion-based provisions, it also demonstrates India’s willingness to address humanitarian concerns for persecuted minorities from neighbouring countries. The introduction of the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024, provides a transparent and systematic framework to operationalize the Act, highlighting India’s commitment to administrative efficiency and legal clarity. Moving forward, continued dialogue, careful implementation, and judicial review can ensure that citizenship laws uphold constitutional values, strengthen social integration, and preserve India’s secular and democratic fabric.

References

R. Myneni, Citizenship and Emigration Law, 2^nd Edition (2022), Asia Law House

https://indiancitizenshiponline.nic.in/Documents/UserGuide/E_gazette_11032024.pdf

https://indiancitizenshiponline.nic.in/Documents/UserGuide/Citizenship_Act_1955_16042019.pdf

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2019/12/16/united-nations-indias-new-citizenship-amendment-act-2019-is-fundamentally-discriminatory-in-nature/

https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/Paper2/citizenship-of-india