When asking a layman, about what 'citizenship' means, one could expect answers like, a sense of belongingness to a nation, or a membership of a nation, but legally, citizenship is a status, by virtue of which a relation is established between a nation and an individual, entailing specific legal rights and duties[1].This definition of citizenship and citizen, becomes important, even more, in Indian Context because, the Constitution provides, Indian Citizens, some specific fundamental rights, that are not available for the foreigners.

But is the rights and duties, only two things that the state provides its citizen? No, there is so much more, if we go by the constitution only, we see that to hold the office of President, Prime Minister, to be a member of Lower or the upper house, one must be a citizen of India.

So, the concept of citizenship is not only to provde a shelter or a membership under a nation, but also to provide various privileges. Part II of the Indian Constitution [2], talks about what constitutes citizenship in India. Then the question arises, what was the need for a separate act, if the constitution itself provides as to what are the requirements for citizenship in India? The answer is that none of the laws are static, laws must be of such a nature, that they address the problems of the changing times.

The essence of the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National register for citizens, is that the former aims at providing citizenship to certain categories of immigrants in India, whereas the later aims at outlining the total number of immigrants in India.[3] However, the act has attracted a fair share of criticisms and there has been extensive debated with regard to its constitutional validity. The debate begins with reference to the people, who are included to get the citizenship in India, whereas the Muslim population is excluded, also, only three countries are included in the act.

As a result of which, people have been divided in two groups, one which are supporting it as being a savior of the interest of oppressed and persecuted, whereas others are calling it as violative of article 14 and also, secular structure of the Indian Constitution. In the same lines, the application of article 13 which provides for judicial review, on the CAA has become a contesting debate in the judicial and political spheres.

The discussion thus far was made with an attempt to set a theme, upon which the research paper will be emphasizing upon, with effort put towards understanding the constitutional concept of citizenship, the need for the citizenship amendment act, the debate around it, and providing alternative measures.

Citizenship As Per The Indian Constitution:

As mentioned before, part II of the Indian Constitution provides, what amounts to citizenship in India. Before getting into the definitions, we must understand the factor that led to this constitutional development. The idea of citizenship in the constitution, comes at the time, when India had just received Independence, and was now divided in two separate nations, i.e., Pakistan and India, with both having their respective share of boundaries, and all the people within these areas were divided as per the division of boundaries.

For example, Lahore, which used to be part of India, was now in Pakistan, and so, people of this areas, were confused on where they belonged, as all of a sudden they were said to be a citizen of a different state, and it was out of will for many, so in that state of confusion, many people, who were now part of Pakistan but had relatives and land in India,[4]wanted to come to India and vice-versa, but that was not encouraged, and to restrict such practise, the idea of citizenship was brought up and was mentioned in the Indian Constitution, to demarcate between the Indian and non-Indians, this division was seen essential by our constitution makers, for the Indians to avail certain rights and also because the Indian Constitution, in its preamble itself mentions that it has been given to the people of India, this again highlights the intent of the Constitution framers, that they wanted this constitution to be applicable and enforceable by the Indian Citizens, thus, for these reasons, a separate part dedicated to citizenship is provided in Indian Constitution.

Citizenship in the Indian Constitution

Article 5

Article 5 of the Indian Constitution talks about citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution. It states that a person will be recognized as a citizen of India if they satisfy the following conditions:

• They have a domicile in India.
• They fulfill one of the three conditions:
  • The person was born in India.
  • Either of the person's parents was born in India.
  • The person has been residing in India for not less than five years preceding the commencement of the Constitution.

Article 6

Article 6 discusses the status of people who migrated from Pakistan to India. It provides three conditions for such migrants to be recognized as Indian citizens:

• The person migrating was born in India, or either of their parents was born in India.
• If they migrated before 19 July 1948, they remained as a resident ever since.
• If they migrated after 19 July 1948, they:
  • Got registered as a citizen of India by an assigned officer.
  • Had remained a resident in India for six months before applying for registration.

Article 7

Article 7 overrides Articles 5 and 6 by stating that:

• Anyone who migrated from Pakistan after 1 March 1947 shall not be deemed a citizen of India.
• Exception: If a person returned to India with a permit of resettlement, they could acquire citizenship after fulfilling Article 6's procedure.

Article 8

Article 8 mandates that individuals (or their parents or grandparents) who were born in India but reside outside India must:

• Get registered as a citizen of India.
• Follow the procedure prescribed by the Government of India, either before or after the commencement of the Constitution.

Article 9

Article 9 states that:

• If a person voluntarily acquires the citizenship of a foreign state, they cease to be a citizen of India.

Article 10

Article 10 ensures that:

• A person deemed to be a citizen of India shall continue to be so unless otherwise provided by a statute made by Parliament.

Article 11

Article 11 grants Parliament the power to:

• Make laws on the acquisition and termination of citizenship.
• Legislate on other matters related to citizenship.

Critical Analysis

Part II of the Indian Constitution defines criteria for acquiring Indian citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution. However, some issues arise:

• It does not specify how a foreign national, whose parents or grandparents were not born in India, can acquire citizenship.
• Citizenship is largely based on descent, as seen in Articles 5 and 6.
• Article 5 applies only to those fulfilling conditions before the commencement of the Constitution.
• Article 6 focuses only on migrants from Pakistan, excluding people from other countries.

To address these concerns, Parliament enacted the Citizenship Act of 1955 under its authority from Article 11.

The Citizenship Act,1955:

Citizenship is a matter of Union List and so, the power to make laws regarding it lies exclusively with the central government and article 11 itself empowers the parliament to do so. As we have discussed, Part II of the Indian Constitution is very limited in its approach and was silent on number of aspects concerning citizenship, as discussed, and because of these problems, it was unable to keep up with the changing society, so to address this issue, the parliament of India enacted the Citizenship Amendment Act, 1955.

Background:
The Citizenship Act of 1955 was enacted and commenced on 30 December 1955, it was an effort of the parliament to ensure the rights and the duties of a citizen. It provided for an individual to hold the position of as an Indian Citizen either through birth, i.e., if the individual is born in India, or through descent, if the individual was born in a foreign state but the individual's parents were born in India, or through registration, or through naturalization, i.e., staying in India for a period of time, and then through an application, securing a certificate of naturalization by the central government. It further provided citizenship through the incorporation of territory, and citizenship through Assam Accord.

The Citizenship Act, 1955 not only provided methods for procurement of citizenship but also provided for revoking the citizenship, it could happen if the individual has renounced his citizenship, i.e., willfully rejecting the rights of citizenship, then the citizenship is revoked in a legal manner; or if the person has accepts the citizenship of a foreign nation, then the citizenship is automatically terminated, which is the same as provided under article 9 of the constitution.

The act further provided certain circumstances or scenarios, where the person is stripped of his citizenship, this action is taken by the government and it does so, if it is satisfied that the person has committed any act or has given any speech that is disrespectful or against the nation; or if an individual has deceitfully obtained Indian citizenship; or if the individual is involved in anti-national activities, such as trading and communicating national secrets to the enemies of the nation during war; or if the person has not returned to India and is residing outside, for any purpose excluding nationally official or educational purpose.[6]

Amendments:
Like any other piece of legislation, the Citizenship Act, 1955 was not perfect and needed to be amended to cater to the needs of the people with the changing times. So the Citizenship Act of 1955 was amended several times, the first of such amendment coming in 1986, where the application of section 3, citizenship by birth of the act was narrowed, where originally, it was to be given to anyone born in India, the amendment made it that any person, born in India on or after January 26, 1950 and before July 1, 1987 shall be a citizen of India.

The second amendment was made in 1992, which made certain replacements such as male persons to persons in section 4, earlier the section only provided citizenship by descent to those, who father was an Indian Citizen, now it was made gender neutral.[7]

The third amendment was made in 2003 (referred to as act 6 of 2004), this was one of the important amendment because it defined "illegal immigrants" and also it inserted a new section 14A which made it mandatory for the Central government, to register every Indian Citizen and issue national card to them. The fourth amendment was brought up in 2005, which elaborated upon the oversees citizen of India (OCI). The fifth amendment was made in 2015, which provided procedure and a new category of citizenship for the OCIs, the overseas citizen of India cardholder, under section 7A.

Now, the most recent and the most controversial amendment to the act was made in 2019, which amended the interpretation clause of the act, i.e., section 2 of the act and more precisely, it added a proviso to section 2(1)(b), dealing with the definition of illegal migrants. Earlier, there were only two interpretations of illegal immigrants, one without any legal permit and others with a legal permit, but staying beyond the permitted time, and the amendment made a proviso stating, migrants from the state of Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan, belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian Community, who entered India on or before 31 December 2014 shall not be treated as illegal immigrants[8], and for these exempted people, a new section 6B was carved out, that provided the power to the central government or any other authority, specified by the central government to grant a certificate of registration or naturalization to these individuals, which would mean that they people, who are not considered to be illegal migrants, can be given the Indian Citizenship.

CAA, 2019:
The 6th amendment of the Citizenship Act, 1955 or popularly known as the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 has been a matter of debate since its introduction in 2019, the main change that has been brought up by this act is the proviso to the interpretation clause, i.e., section 2(1)(b) of the act, providing that the people of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Christian or Parsi community coming from the states of Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan are not to be considered, illegal migrants.

Normally, an illegal migrant is exempted from getting the citizenship of India, but for these people, the procedure of citizenship is being provided via this amendment, which included a new section 6B to the act, giving power to the central government or any authorized body, thereof to give these people a certificate of naturalization or a certificate of registration, by virtue of which they would be considered, citizens of India, and to avail it, the person just has to showcase, he has come to India on or before 31st of December, 2014 and belongs to the communities mentioned from anyone of the three states, for that purpose, the person would have to show anyone of the 9 documents that the central government has notified and recognized as a proof of nationality- birth certificate, passport, identity document issued by the government, any certificate or license issued by the government, amongst other.

There will also be a competent authority for the purpose of issuing certificates, and the people claiming the benefit must also give a proof of their entry, meaning the proof that they entered on before the specified date. The applicants will be further required to make a declaration with regard to their place of residence, and also would be required to reiterate their religion and also for the eligibility certificate, they would be required to be affirm through an Indian, their nationality and religion. Also, the certificates, will be granting citizenship retrospectively, i.e., from the date they entered India.[9]

History And Public Response:

As we know, for any legislation to become an act, it is to be produced as a bill in either of the house of the parliament, excluding money bill, which can only be produced in the lower house.[10] The Citizenship (Amendment) Act was also introduced as a bill and was passed on 11 December 2019, and on 12 December 2019, the bill got the assent of the then President[11], Shri. Ram Nath Kovind and becomes an act. This is not a new legislation, which must have become clear by now, this act is the sixth amendment to the Citizenship Act of 1955.

After, the act got assent of the President, the nation witnessed a series of protest, starting from 15th of December 2019 when a women-led protest began in Delhi's Shaheen Bagh, with the protest taking aggressive turn in 2020. Because of this act, the nation was divided in two halves, one supporting the act, calling the protestors, as anti-nationals, and another, against it, calling it against the ethos of the constitution. These protests came to a halt during March of 2020 because of the COVID-19 lockdown and was at a low since then, but the protest erupted again with the rules regarding the implementation of CAA making the headlines, and on 11 of March 2024, the central government notified the implementation of the act and its associated rules.

The Controvery Surrounding CAA:

CAA has since its introduction, sparked great share of controversy, as discussed earlier. There are people in support of it, but there is a great chunk of people against it. The people in opposition, are opposing on two major grounds; first is the north-eastern part of India, including Assam, which is against the act, precisely because of the fact, that if such a number of migrants are provided citizenship, then, it could potentially harm the cultural and linguistic diversity of the area, as a result of which, the people of Assam and especially the All Assam Student Union (AASU) has come forward to protest against the act and in response, burned several copies of the act and has also filed a petition for the same.

The other group is not concerned with the migrants hampering the cultural and linguistic diversity, but is emphasizing upon the communities, that has been mentioned, the act has no mention of the Muslim community, so people are challenging the act, calling it unconstitutional because it undermines the constitutional principles of equality and secularism. To this, the central government has responded by saying the communities has been selected thoughtfully because the countries that are mentioned are all Muslim-majority countries and these communities are persecuted in those states, so these people should be given the citizenship.

However, this move has been called unconstitutional by various people and many people are seeing it as a "divisive attempt by the central government", even the President of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), Asaduddin Owaisi, has called CAA to be based on the ideology of Godse and an attempt to make the muslim population of the country, as second class-citizens.[12]

Questions On Constitutional Validity:

Up until now, the word unconstitutional has been used multiple times in the paper, but why are people calling CAA, unconstitutional? Well, the answer is Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which upholds the right to equality, saying all the people are equal before law, and this is one of the articles that are applicable to all people not just citizens, but to all humans alike[13], this means that the applicability of this article would extend to even migrants, this precisely is the main contention of the protestors, saying that if the Indian constitution has recognized everyone to be equal before law, that means, not a single legislation can be made that is discriminatory in nature, unless there is a reasonable justification for the same, i.e., reasonable classification[14], which in the case of CAA, as believed by the majority of people is not reasonable classification in any sense, and just pure discrimination because if the government had the intentions of the giving citizenship to the persecuted, why didn't they include the Rohingya Muslims, this is one question that has is being raised by the protestors.

In the same line, another constitutional issue that is being raised is that the act is hampering the constitutional principle of secularism, which is held to be the basic structure of the Indian Constitution in the case of Kesavananda Bharti v. Union of India.[15] Secularism is India, basically entails that the state will not favor any one religion over other, and again the point that is being raised is that if no religion is to be favored, i.e., superior that would mean, none of the religion would be inferior also, but the non-inclusion of Muslims, denotes an attempt to establish inferiority over anything, as even pointed out by Owaisi[16].

These are the constitutional questions that has been raised by the protestors, challenging the act on the constitutional grounds. The Supreme Court was overcrowded by the number of PILs challenging the constitutional validity of CAA, but no judgement has been made yet. And due to lack of any judgement on this amendment yet, there is nothing that could be said for granted on the question if the differentiation of the government is intelligible differentia or not, but one thing that could definitely help in assessing this differentiation is the fact that CAA has included the minority communities from Muslim-dominant states only and the argument of the state is that the intention of the statute is to safeguard the persecuted religious minorities, on the same lines if it is the real motive then why the exclusion of Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar and Muslims from Sri-Lanka? While raising these questions, another constitutional issue is raised, it is raised with respect to Article 21, which guarantees all the people, irrespective of Citizenship, right to life and personal liberty.

However, the scope of this article was extended in the case of Maneka Gandhi v UOI,[17]where it was said that right to life and personal liberty is not restricted to just guaranteeing any person, a right to live and doing what one wants and wishes but it extends to cover all the aspects that are contributory to achieve that means, including a person's right to live with human dignity, this means and include that every person has an inalienable right to live a dignified life, meaning a life without any discrimination and they are entitled to claim equal respect from the state as well as other persons.Ed[18] This means that the exclusion of the persecuted minorities from the Sri-Lanka and Myanmar have been scraped off their right to live with dignity provided by Article 21.[19] This raises yet another constitutional question, i.e., whether CAA is differentiating or discriminating?[20]

Problem With The National Register For Citizens (NRC):

The third amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955 made it the duty of the state to register all Indian Citizenship, it means that it aims at registering all the legal citizens of India, this would enable the state to get a data on the illegal immigrants in India, which it would deport as they are not the Citizens. NRC has been championed by the BJP and is even said to be applied nationwide by the Union Minister of Home Affairs, Amit Shah.[21]

The National Register of Citizens is very clear in its approach that it would include all the people who have legal citizenship of India and for the people who don't have a legal citizenship or whose citizenship seems doubtful, they would be recorded and would be heard by the foreigners tribunal, where if they fail to prove their citizenship, they'll be treated as foreigners.

This amendment or the whole NRC, is not the problem by itself, but the fact that with the most recent amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955, i.e., CAA, it would essentially mean implementing the will of the ruling party, one must ask how? The answer lies in the rules of the NRC,2003, which read that the NRC will be based on the data collected in the National Population Register, which will register the whole population of India, whether citizens or non-citizens, and on the basis of the collected data, NRC will be made, where it would be upon the discretion of the local official appointed by the government, who would choose to add the name of a person in the NPR to the NCR, and names in the NCR would be considered as the legal citizens of India, whereas those who are not included, wouldn't be immediately considered to be foreigners, they would be provided an opportunity to prove their citizenship before the foreigner's tribunal, but, if they fail to do so, they will be considered as foreigners and there citizenship, even if they have it, would be invalidated.

Now, the CAA has clearly excluded the Muslims, notwithstanding that even they are persecuted, meaning the Muslim immigrants will not be given citizenship, now the contesting issue is the fact that with the power in the hands of the official appointed by the government, which is at present BJP, who will decide to add the name of people in the NRC, which means that he also has discretion to not add someone's name even if the person has citizenship, and then the person would be tried in the foreigner's tribunal, set up by the government to prove his citizenship, which if one fails, then will be regarded as a foreigner, however, the decision can be challenged in the High Court and then in Supreme Court but it will be a very arduous and time-taking process, and for the time being based on the decision of tribunal, the person will be regarded as a foreigner.

Now, to establish a connection between CAA and NRC, what if a muslim in India, who has a citizenship, after the implementation of NRC is not included in the register, then his citizenship can be rescinded, which is the exact question and concern that has been raised by the protestors of CAA and NRC, which if the Muslims are scraped off their citizenship, the again the constitutional pillars will be challenged, i.e., secularism, article 14 and article 21.[22]

Conclusion:
CAA is one of the amendments, more precisely the sixth amendment that has been made to the Citizenship Act, 2019 which aims at providing citizenship to the migrants who have entered India on or before 31st of December, 2014 and those migrants must be belonging to any of the following religious communities – Hindu, Sikh, Parsi, Christian, Jain or Buddhist Community and these migrants must also belong to either Pakistan, Afghanistan or Bangladesh. Whereas National Register of Citizens (NRC) is the third amendment that was made to the Citizenship Act, 1955 and it enabled the government to record all the Indian Citizens, i.e., people having valid Indian Citizenship, this amendment would enable the government to point-out all the illegal migrants, that they can deport.

The discussion thus, far has made one thing clear that the CAA-NRC is not appreciated by the masses, having various reasons for its disapproval but the main question that has been raised on these amendments is with respect to them being in contradiction to Articles 21 and 14 and the constitutional principle of secularism, while many people have also pointed out that it is an attempt on the part of the state to discriminate against the Muslims. At present, the government has notified the rules for the implementation of CAA-NRC, but if it is really implemented without any amendments or changes, it could potentially harm the constitutional mechanism in India.

Analysis:
We have looked into how the CAA-NRC is at least in debates, and based on whatever judgements we have up till now, is violative of Article 14 and 21. If we just take article 14, which propounds the idea of right to equality and it is a right that has universal application, we see that it provides a fundamental rights which essentially discards any discriminatory practices, whether coming from an individual or from the state itself.[23]

Further in the case of Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain,[24] the courts held that the state must act fairly and reasonably and the principles of natural justice shouldn't be done away with, the state must maintain it and if state does anything in contradiction to these, then such actions will be violative of Article 14. Applying the rational of these cases in the CAA, we see that the exclusion of Muslims from the act and the reason behind such action that has been given by the government that they've only enumerated those migrants that have faced persecution in their homelands, that also happen to the Muslim-dominant states, all this implies a clear discrimination against the Muslims and an argument that the Hindu, Sikh, Parsi, Christian, Buddhist and Jain Community are persecuted in the Muslim-majority countries, but Rohingya Muslims are not persecuted in the Buddhist-majoritarian state of Myanmar, substantiates the same.

Coming to article 21, which provides an individual, right to life and personal liberty, it also includes a person's right to live with dignity, as was even held in the case of Maneka Gandhi v UOI,[25] in the case of people who are living in India, as of now, if the NRC is conducted, some of them can be made to appear in foreigner's tribunal to prove their citizenship, even if they have legal citizenship but it appears to be doubtful to the official appointed by the state, this is an infringement of Article 21, where the state is hampering a person's dignified life by making them appear in the tribunal, even if he is able to prove his citizenship, this action could have lasting consequences, for example, one might forever be judged for his presentation before the tribunal.

If we talk about CAA, then the exclusion of persecuted migrants from countries besides Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, who are residing in India, but they are not given a citizenship as compared to their counterparts, this again points question on their right to live with dignity because the state should be equal to all, which in the case of CAA, seems otherwise. Coming to the very essence of the Indian Constitution, 'secularism' which essentially means that all the religious communities will be equivalent for the state and the state will not favor one community over others, which is reflected in the India's approach of not having an official religion, despite being a Hindu-majority state, and this principle was upheld in the case of S.R. Bommai v UOI, and it also means that the state would not interfere in the activities of the religious communities, however, in the case of CAA, the accommodation of the state to provide citizenship to a particular group of Individual belonging to a religious groups and not doing so, in the case of Muslims, on the pretext that they are not persecuted implies that the state has discarded the secular structure.

Measures To Implement CAA-NRC:

Although the provision of CAA is discriminatory in nature, but if we talk about the intention of the legislation, then, it is for the greater good which is to provide citizenship to the people getting persecuted in their home-state, however the approach it takes to achieve that greater good is wrong. So, the state can make some changes and take an alternative approach for the implementation of CAA:

1. The legislation should be secular in nature: When providing citizenship to the persecuted population, the state shouldn't take into consideration religion of the people, if the idea is to provide relief to those persecuted, then it must be done to all the people, irrespective of wherever they come from, and what religious community they belong.
   
2. No Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants: Before the amendment was made in 2019, all the illegal immigrants were denied citizenship in India, it is something that must be continued, citizenship must only be provided to legal immigrants, where the state can make a provision, saying that all the people who have entered India legally or were forced to enter India, following persecution will be provided citizenship if they have legal documents, and bona-fide intention of gaining citizenship, where one can be asked about the motive behind gaining citizenship.
   
   If citizenship is distributed on the religious lines or on the fact that a particular community has been persecuted and thus, should be citizen of India, it could put the national security on stake. So, an immigrant irrespective of religion, state, must prove their purpose for gaining citizenship, if they fail to do and are persecuted, then they can be provided shelter and benefits from the state, as a gesture of welfare state, but not citizenship.
   
3. Regard to Cultural Diversity: When providing citizenship to the immigrants, the state must also consider the cultural diversity of India, otherwise the protests as evident in Assam can be witnessed. This is important because India is culturally very diverse nation, and suddenly if citizenship is provided to the immigrants, then, the cultural diversity can become endangered, which is one of the main concerns for a section of the CAA-NRC protestors.
   
   The immigrants must be residing in various parts of India, some more culturally rich than the other, so their placement must be something that needs to be administered by the government. Providing citizenship should not be the only goal but also providing a place to reside, where they don't come in conflict with the existing cultures is also important. For example, if there are immigrants from Bangladesh, they can placed in West-Bengal; if from Pakistan, they Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir can be a good option because their cultures align with each other, they don't overlap or conflict with each other.

References:

1. Citizenship, C. f. (n.d.). What is Citizenship. Retrieved from csc.wayne.edu: https://csc.wayne.edu/what-is-citizenship
2. Article 5 to Article 11 of the Indian Constitution.
3. Awasthi, S. (2024, March 17). Don't confuse CAA with NRC. Retrieved from indiatoday.in: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/video/what-is-caa-nrc-difference-2515730-2024-03-17#
4. Reference to be made to the short story of Saadat Hasan Manto – Toba Tek Singh.
5. Rani, N. R. (n.d.). Analysis on Law of Domicile. Retrieved from alsi.edu.in: https://www.alsi.edu.in/images/conflit-of-law.output.pdf
6. Citizenship Act, 1955. (n.d.). Retrieved from Unacademy: https://unacademy.com/content/clat/study-material/legal-reasoning/citizenship-act-1955/
7. Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1992 (No. 39 of 1992). (n.d.). Retrieved from natlex.ilo.org: https://natlex.ilo.org/dyn/natlex2/r/natlex/fe/details?p3_isn=47675
8. The proviso further extends to people who have been exempted by the Central Government under the Passport Act, 1920 or the application of provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
9. Kumar, M. (2024, March 12). Proof of nationality, date of entry to India — what's required for citizenship under CAA rules. Retrieved from ThePrint: https://theprint.in/india/proof-of-nationality-date-of-entry-to-india-whats-required-for-citizenship-under-caa-rules/1997091/
10. Article 107 of the Indian Constitution.
11. By virtue of Article 111.
12. The statement has been taken from Asaduddin Owaisi's tweet, following the notification of rules and implementation of CAA by the central government, made on March 11, 2024, at 7:04 PM.
13. Olga Rosnina v. Foreigners Regional Registration Office, 1071 (Goa Bench Bombay) High Court August 23, 2023.
14. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, 538 (Supreme Court March 28, 1958).
15. AIR 1973 SC 1461.
16. See Supra note 12.
17. 1978 SCR (2) 621.
18. Editor, B. (n.d.). What is right to live with dignity. Retrieved from Byjus.com: https://byjus.com/ias-questions/what-is-the-right-to-live-with-dignity/
19. The language of the Constitution itself justifies that Article 14 and 21 have universal application, thus these two articles can be applied to all the people present in India, even to the illegal immigrants, and the ones who are excluded from the purview of CAA can very well enforce their fundamental rights under these articles.
20. (Indian Union Muslim League v. Union of India, 2024), the case is still pending before the SC, but the above question is one of the issues that has been raised by the petitioners – "Whether the CAA differentiates on the basis of Religion?"
21. Desk, I. T. (2019, November 20). Amit Shah: NRC to apply nationwide, no person of any religion should worry. Retrieved from indiatoday.in: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/amit-shah-nrc-rajya-sabha-1620810-2019-11-20
22. Nath, A. (2019, December 20). Protests continue in Tamil Nadu against CAA, NRC. Retrieved from indiatoday.in: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/protests-continue-tamil-nadu-against-caa-nrc-1630224-2019-12-20
23. S.R. Bommai v. UOI, AIR 1994 SCC (3) 1.
24. 1976 2 SCR 347.
25. See Supra Note 17.