The Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 marked a significant shift in India’s citizenship laws, amending the Citizenship Act of 1955. It provides citizenship eligibility to certain religious minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, sparking extensive debates about its implications on India’s secular fabric, fundamental rights, and regional identities.

Citizenship Amendment Act 2019

The Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 is a highly significant amendment to the act of 1955.

• • Regulation of Citizenship in India: As mentioned earlier, the Citizenship Act of 1955 governs citizenship in India. The Act outlines five ways through which citizenship can be obtained in India: by birth, descent, registration, naturalisation (which involves extended residence in India), and by territory incorporation into India. 
  • Illegal migrant: Illegal migrants are not allowed to obtain Indian citizenship. An illegal migrant is defined as a foreigner who enters India unlawfully, meaning without valid travel documents such as a visa or passport. Additionally, individuals who enter India legally but remain beyond the authorized duration specified in their travel documents are also classified as illegal migrants.  
  • Legal actions against illegal migrants: An illegal migrant may face legal action in India and could be deported or imprisoned under the Foreigners Act of 1946 and the Passport (Entry into India) Act of 1920. These laws give the Central government the authority to control the entry, exit, and residency of foreigners in India. 
• Recent developments: In September 2015 and July 2016, the central government allowed exemptions for certain groups of illegal migrants from being jailed or deported, specifically those who entered India from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, or Pakistan on or before December 31, 2014, and who identify with the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian faiths. The Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 grants citizenship eligibility to these particular groups of illegal migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, or Pakistan, provided they arrived in India on or prior to December 31, 2014, and belong to the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian religious communities. 

Provisions under Citizenship amendment Act 2019

The 2019 amendment introduced significant modifications to the Citizenship Act of 1955. Below are its key features:  

• Eligibility criteria for certain undocumented migrants: The act states that a particular category of undocumented migrants from three countries will not be considered illegal, making them eligible for citizenship. This “specified category of undocumented migrants” includes six communities: Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, provided they entered India on or before the cutoff date of December 31, 2014.  
• Naturalization process: The residency requirement for undocumented migrants wishing to apply for citizenship through naturalization has been reduced from 11 years to 5 years.  
• Exemptions from provisions: The Citizenship Act’s provisions will not apply to two groups: states included under the Sixth Schedule, which covers the tribal regions of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura; and states protected by the Inner Line Permit, such as Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Manipur.  
• Grounds for the cancellation of OCI registration: A new clause has been introduced stating that the Central Government may revoke OCI membership if the individual breaches any provisions of the Citizenship Amendment Act or any other law specified by the Central Government. Additionally, no cancellation order shall be issued without allowing the cardholder an opportunity to respond.

Concerns due to Citizenship Amendment Act

Impacts India’s secular credentials: 

The framers of the Constitution were dedicated to establishing a secular nation, where every citizen, regardless of their faith, has equal rights. Granting citizenship based on religion contravenes this principle.

Violation of Fundamental Rights:  

It is claimed that this law infringes upon Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality to everyone residing in India, whether they are citizens or non-citizens. Article 14 also applies to all individuals living in the country. It permits differentiation between groups of people only if the criteria for doing so fulfills a justifiable purpose. Consequently, the exclusion of a particular religion, namely Muslims, from the act’s provisions is inconsistent with India’s secular ethos. The act discriminates against illegal migrants based on (a) their country of origin, (b) religion, (c) date they entered India, and (d) their place of residence in India. It is ambiguous whether these factors justify the differential treatment established by the act.

Exclusion of refugees:

The act aims to grant citizenship to migrants fleeing religious persecution; thus, it is puzzling why illegal migrants from other countries’ religious minorities have been left out. For example, India shares borders with Sri Lanka, where the Tamil Eelam, a linguistic minority, has faced persecution, and Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar, labeled “the most persecuted minority in the world” by the United Nations, have also been denied. Furthermore, other religious minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, including the Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan (who are regarded as non-Muslims there) and atheists in Bangladesh who have experienced religious persecution, may have entered India illegally. It remains unclear why these groups were omitted from the act.

Wide discretion to cancel OCI registration:

The central government has the authority to define which legal violations will lead to the revocation of OCI registration. This could result in excessive delegation of powers by the legislature. The Supreme Court has stated that when powers are delegated to an executive body, the legislature must set forth a policy, standard, or rule to guide that body, which would delineate the extent of their powers and prevent arbitrary decision-making in rule formulation. The act fails to offer any direction regarding the type of laws that the central government may designate. Consequently, the powers granted to the executive could exceed the acceptable limits of valid delegation, as there are no established criteria or principles governing the laws that may be notified by the government. 

Concerns related to methodology: 

There is no conclusive data regarding the number of illegal migrants in India, and in many instances, their religious affiliations are also unclear. It is uncertain how the Indian government will evaluate if the applicant faced persecution in her homeland. It is important to note that neither of the three nations discussed in the act, nor any other country globally, would acknowledge endorsing religious persecution.  

Concerns in the Northeast:  

Residents of the Northeast are apprehensive that the act may undermine their ethnic groups and identities. Specifically, individuals in Assam have protested against the act, which contradicts the provisions of the Assam Accord. The Assam Accord mandated the expulsion of illegal immigrants who entered the state after March 24, 1971, without any allowance for religious persecution in considering illegal immigrants. The act introduces religious persecution as a criterion for granting preferential treatment to illegal immigrants throughout the country, including Assam. Furthermore, the cutoff date for citizenship has been shifted from March 24, 1971, to December 31, 2014—an adjustment of 43 years, nine months, and seven days. This change has incited widespread opposition and protests in Assam, as demonstrators view it as a reversal of the central government’s commitment to safeguarding their Assamese cultural identity.  

Debates around the New Amendment

Discussions surrounding the 2019 amendment to the Citizenship Act of 1955 are clouded by assumptions that the ruling party aims to diminish the citizenship status of a specific minority community through the implementation of the NRC. There is concern that individuals may be rendered stateless if they cannot provide all necessary documentation. In light of these misconceptions and misinformation, addressing these issues has become essential.