Revision as of 14:58, 28 January 2019

The basics

The Constitution of India provides for a single citizenship for the whole of India. Every person who was at the commencement of the Constitution (26 January 1950) domiciled in the territory of India and: (a) who was born in India; or (b) either of whose parents was born in India; or (c) who has been ordinarily resident in India for not less than five years became a citizen of India. The Citizenship Act, 1955, deals with matters relating to acquisition, determination and termination of Indian citizenship after the commencement of the Constitution.

Citizenship for minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan

2011-18

Bharti Jain, ‘Citizenship Bill to immediately help 31,000 immigrants’, January 21, 2019: The Times of India

Mostly Pakistanis On Long-Term Visas To Gain

Around 31,000 immigrants from minority communities of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, granted long-term visa by India on grounds of ‘religious persecution’ and who have applied for citizenship, will be the immediate beneficiaries of the proposed amendments to the Citizenship Act. However, contrary to the perception that the bill will confer citizenship on a large number of Bangladeshi immigrants living in Assam, no more than 187 Bangladeshis were granted long-term visa from 2011 to January 8, 2019.

The majority of the beneficiaries may be Pakistani immigrants, with as many as 34,817 issued long-term visas between 2011 and January 8. The religion-wise break-up of Pakistani long-term visa holders was not available, though as per the report of the joint parliamentary committee (JPC) on Citizenship Amendment Bill, there were 31,313 migrants — 25,447 Hindus, 5807 Sikhs, 55 Christians, two Buddhists and two Parsis — from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh staying on long-term visas.

While 15,107 Pakistani longterm visa holders are living in Rajasthan, 1,560 are in Gujarat, 1,444 in Madhya Pradesh, 599 in Maharashtra, 581 in Delhi, 342 in Chhattisgarh and 101 in Uttar Pradesh.

As per the JPC report laid in both Houses of Parliament on January 7, Intelligence Bureau in its deposition before the committee had said 31,313 minorities from the three countries, granted long-term visa based on claims of ‘religious persecution’ and who had applied for citizenship, would be the immediate beneficiaries of proposed changes in the Citizenship Act.

However, it added that others who did not claim “religious persecution” at the time of their arrival in India would find it difficult to do so now. “Any future claim will be enquired into, including through RAW, before a decision (on grant of citizenship) is taken,” the IB director had told the panel.

He further hinted that even the 31,313 immigrants on long-term visa could be subjected to fresh security vetting.

Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019

Passed in Lok Sabha

LS okays plan to tweak citizenship law, January 9, 2019: The Times of India

ST Status Sop For 6 Assam Communities

Amid dissent from opposition, walkouts by Congress and Trinamool Congress, and allegations that the bill discriminated on religious lines, Lok Sabha passed the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 on Tuesday. It will now face the Rajya Sabha hurdle, where the larger bench strength of the opposition could stall its passage and eventual enactment.

The bill seeks to provide Indian citizenship to non-Muslims from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan who have escaped religious persecution. It has faced allround resistance in Assam, including from NDA ally Asom Gana Parishad (AGP), which quit the BJP-led Assam government.

Piloting the bill in Lok Sabha, home minister Rajnath Singh asserted that the Centre would take all steps to protect the Assamese culture and traditions, but remained, at the same time, unapologetic about the need to give special protection to Hindus facing persecution in neighbouring countries.

Undercutting Congress’ arguments that the bill was discriminatory, Singh quoted former PMs Jawaharlal Nehru and Manmohan Singh to buttress his argument that India has the “moral obligation” to shelter refugees from neighbouring countries.

“They have no place to go to, except India,” Rajnath Singh said, adding that it was unfortunate that despite the Liaquat-Nehru Pact to protect minorities, it was not honoured as it should have been. Rajnath also asserted that “anyone eligible under the provisions under the law will be accorded citizenship”.

He also clarified that the government had acceded to the opposition demand for implementation of Clause 6 of the Assam Accord, to grant tribal status to six OBC communities — Tea Tribes /Adivasi, Tai-Ahom, Chutia, Koch-Rajbongshi, Moran and Motok. “A high level committee has been appointed to implement this,” he said, adding that a separate bill will be brought to grant ST status to Bodo Kacharis living in the hill districts of Assam and Karbis in the plains.

“Sixth Schedule of the Constitution is also proposed to be amended to strengthen the Autonomous District Councils,” he said.

In the House, the loudest opposition to the bill came from AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi, who alleged the bill was made by those who supported the ‘Two Nation’ theory and was in contravention of various sections of the Constitution.

Congress said many states opposed the bill and demanded that it should be sent to a select committee, walking out after the government did not heed its demand. TMC’s Saugata Roy dubbed the proposed legislation “divisive” and “insidious” that goes against the basic tenets of the Constitution.

Why Assam, other NE states opposed the bill

January 9, 2019: The Times of India

• Why Assam is again in the vortex of pro- and anti- migrant politics

The immediate cause is the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, seeking to facilitate granting of Indian citizenship for non-Muslim migrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan on grounds of religious persecution. The bill stretches the cutoff date for granting citizenship to December 31, 2014 from March 24, 1971 as mentioned in the 1985 Assam Accord.

• How BJP justifies religion-based citizenship rules

BJP says such provisions will prevent Assam from being swamped by Muslims (or Jinnahs as Himanta Biswa Sarma, BJP’s face in the northeast, puts it). It believes Assam needs additional Hindu population to ensure Muslims cannot become a force reckon with in politics.

• Why there is so much resistance against the changes

In Assam, illegal migrants are not identified along religious lines and people want such migrants from Bangladesh, both Muslims and Hindus, who are incidentally Bengali-speaking, to be deported. The Assamese fear that illegal migrants from Bangladesh pose a threat to their cultural and linguistic identity.

• What is the general stand of Bengali-speaking people on the issue

In Bengali-dominated Barak Valley, most people welcome religion-based citizenship rules, which, they hope, will shield them from the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Until now, close to 40 lakh people have not found place on the NRC.

Bengali-speaking Muslims, who outnumber everyone else in at least eight districts of western and central Assam, are against the proposal to offer citizenship only to non-Muslim migrants. The minority-dominated AIUDF, headed by Bengali-speaking billionaire Badruddin Ajmal, supports the campaign launched by about 70 indigenous outfits, including AGP and Aasu, against the proposed bill.

In terms of percentage, Assam has the country’s second highest Muslim population after Jammu & Kashmir. Muslims, mostly Bengalispeaking, comprise 34% of Assam’s little over 3 crore people. Assamese-speaking Muslims, who are miniscule in number, support campaigns against migrants from all religious denominations.

• What steps have the Centre and BJP initiated to end the unrest

They propose to extend Article 371 of the Constitution and implement Clause 6 of the Assam Accord and to protect and preserve political rights, ethnic identity, cultural, literary and other rights of the state’s indigenous people. The use of Article 371, which has provisions for reservation of parliamentary and assembly seats for indigenous people, may upset Hindu Bengalis as well as Muslim Bengalis. Earlier, both had opposed the NRC.

• How other north-eastern states look at the new Citizenship Act

All NE states — Bengalimajority Tripura partially — are against it. Meghalaya and Nagaland, where the BJP shares power with regional forces, and Mizoram, where NDA ally MNF is in power, want a review. Mizoram fears Buddhist Chakmas from Bangladesh may take advantage of the Act. Meghalaya and Nagaland are apprehensive of migrants of Bengali stock. Groups in Arunachal Pradesh, where BJP is in power, fear the new rules may benefit Chakmas and Tibetans. Manipur wants the Inner-line Permit System to stop outsiders from entering the state. In Tripura, the BJP’s ruling partner, Indigenous People’s Front of Tripura, and opposition Indigenous Nationalist Party of Twipra are opposed to the Centre’s move.

• Possible political equations the region may see because of the new Act before the 2019 polls

AGP has quit NDA over the issue. The National People’s Party, BJP’s ruling partner in Meghalaya, does not rule out a similar action. BJP is hopeful that its plan to grant ST status to six Assam ethnic groups will take the wind out of the campaign against the new rules. These groups comprise 27% of Assam’s population and control 40 of the 126 assembly constituencies.

Court verdicts

Person born at mother’s house in Pakistan

Swati Deshpande, 50 yrs on, ‘Pak man’ set for Indian citizenship, June 3, 2018: The Times of India

Six months after the Bombay high court directed the Indian government to consider a citizenship plea made by a Pakistan-born man residing for 50 years in the city, the Mumbai collector administered him the oath of allegiance, the first step towards citizenship.

The court, while granting Asif Karadia (53) protection against deportation in January, had observed after hearing his lawyer Sujay Kantawala and government pleader Purnima Kantharia that it was a “unique case”. Karadia was born in Pakistan and came to India as a toddler. His father, Abbas, is an Indian citizen.

Karadia (L) came to India in 1967

Karadia’s dad got married in Guj in 1962

Asif Karadia’s father had got married in 1962 in Gujarat to a woman who had a passport from Pakistan, which said she was born in Mumbai. The HC observed that “though conceived in India, as per customs, his (Asif ’s) mother went to her parents’ place in Karachi where he was born on April 19, 1965.” Mother and child came to India in 1967 and have lived here since. Asif has been residing on long-term visas.

The father had filed the petition to seek Indian citizenship for his son after a deportation scare. Asif had applied for citizenship in March 2015. Their case was that under Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, Asif was eligible to be granted Indian citizenship. Article 5 of the Indian Constitution allows a person “either of whose parents was born in the territory of India” to become a citizen. Asif ’s name was stamped on his mother’s Pakistani passport after his birth. But in 1972, the Indian government granted citizenship to his mother after she surrendered her passport.

Persecuted people from Bangladesh, Pakistan

Ease citizenship rules for them: Meghalaya HC

December 12, 2018: The Times of India

The Meghalaya high court has urged the PM, law minister and the Parliament to bring a legislation to allow citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, Christians, Khasis, Jaintias and Garos who have come from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan without any question or documents. The 37-page judgment by Justice S R Sen was given on Monday while disposing of a petition filed by Amon Rana, who was denied domicile certificate.

The judgment observed that Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Christians, Parsis, Khasis, Jaintias and Garos are tortured even today in the three neighbouring countries and they have no place to go.

Although the Centre’s Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016 also seeks to make Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan eligible for Indian citizenship after a stay of six years, there was no mention of this bill in the court order.

The judge directed the Centre’s assistant solicitor general, Meghalaya high court, A Paul to hand over the copy of the judgment to PM, Union home and law ministers latest by Tuesday for their perusal and necessary steps to bring a law to safeguard the interest of the communities.

“I can simply say that the Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, Christians, Khasis, Jaintias and Garos residing in India, on whichever date they have come to India, are to be declared as Indian citizens and those who will come in future also to be considered as Indian citizens. The court said these communities may be allowed to come anytime to settle in India and the government may provide rehabilitation “properly” and declare them citizens of India.

Renouncing Indian citizenship

2018 rules

Bharti Jain, Changed rules to seek reasons for renouncing Indian citizenship, October 24, 2018: The Times of India

In Line With Polygamy Law, Only One Foreign Origin Spouse Of PIOs Can Apply For OCI Card

Those renouncing Indian citizenship on account of being national of another country will have to declare the circumstances or reasons due to which they intend to acquire foreign citizenship.

The home ministry, while notifying the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2018, also made it clear that only one living spouse of foreign origin of a citizen of India or overseas citizen of India (OCI) would be eligible to apply for registration as an OCI card-holder. “This is in conformity with the law in India that bans polygamy (except in case of Muslims by virtue of their personal law),” said a ministry official.

The amended rules also require Persons of Indian Origin who are ordinarily resident in India for six months, spouse of a citizen of India and minor child of a citizen of India to specify their religion in their applications for registration as a citizen under Section 5 of the Citizenship Act.

The government has notified a revised form for declaration of renunciation by Indian citizens who are also nationals of another country, bringing it in line with the Citizenship Rules, 2009, that require the applicants to specify under which provision of law they are Indian citizens and also the circumstances in which they intend to acquire foreign citizenship.

“While the Citizenship Rules required the said information to be given in the declaration of renunciation of Indian citizenship, Form XXII prescribed for the purpose did not have entries to record the same. The revised form corrects this anomaly,” said the official.

The revised form requires the applicant to specify whether he/she is/was an Indian citizen by birth, descent, registration or naturalisation; as well as the circumstances that have led him/her to acquire foreign citizenship.

An MHA functionary clarified that the information seeking reasons for renunciation of Indian citizenship is only for record and shall not be used as a ground for rejection of the application.

The government has notified a revised form for declaration of renunciation by Indian citizens who are also nationals of another country. The form requires the applicant to specify if he/she is/was an Indian citizen by birth, descent, registration or naturalisation; as well as the circumstances that have led him/her to acquire foreign citizenship

Voters: determination of their citizenship status

Exclusion, 2017-18

KHALID SAIFULLAH, ABUSALEH SHARIFF & MOHSIN ALAM BHAT, Up to 15% of voters left out of rolls, without even a fair hearing, November 4, 2018: The Times of India

Shariff is chief scholar at the US-India Policy Institute; Bhat is an assistant professor at Jindal Global Law School; Saifullah is a research associate at Centre for Research and Debates in Development Policy.

On August 21, 1992, the Election Commission of India asked registration officers deputed to prepare the voters’ list to identify and delete foreign nationals from the electoral rolls. It also asked district collectors and the police to prepare a list of suspected foreign nationals. The police listed the residents of the localities, it believed, had a substantial presence of foreign nationals based on “intelligence reports”. Only those who were not in this list could apply for enrolment as voters. The others had to provide documentary evidence to satisfy registration officers that they were Indian citizens.

Expectedly, this enumeration and the rejection of voters in thousands led to mayhem. Alleging harassment and disenfranchisement, citizen groups went to the Supreme Court, which came down heavily on an extremely embarrassed state machinery. The right of citizens to participate in elections, according to the principle of adult franchise, is central to their citizenship status. Responding to these concerns in the L B Hussein case, the court ruled that determination of the citizenship status of voters should be treated like a court proceeding. The EC must adopt the highest procedural standards if it wishes to deny any person the right to vote.

Unfortunately, we may have come full circle. Two of us conducted an empirical study showing that millions of adults may have been excluded from electoral lists (EPW, May 19, 2018). Up to 15% of the total electorate of around 130 million adult citizens is missing from the electoral rolls. Data also showed a disproportionate exclusion of Muslims, and pointed to the possibility of similar exclusion among marginalised castes.

To assess the extent to which rejections by the EC contribute to this, we studied data from Karnataka. Out of 2.8 lakh new applications for enrolment during 2017-18, a high 62% were rejected — as many as 18% were denied on the ground of not being Indian citizens and 24% for unspecified reasons. To put it more dramatically, among the total number of rejects, around 30% were rejected on the ground of not being Indian citizens and 39% for reasons not publicly available.

We visited a selection of rejected households to assess the procedures that the EC had followed. The claimants were oblivious of the fact that they had been rejected and the reasons for it. They had been given no meaningful opportunity to present contrary evidence to the commission. We found that the rejected individuals had Aadhaar for their residential address and were able to produce additional documents like electricity bills. Others reported to have been born at their registered residential addresses and were able to produce school certificates in lieu of birth certificates.

As more evidence comes in, it is becoming increasingly apparent that there has been a disconcerting level of procedural violation. Under Indian election law, a person can be disqualified from the electoral rolls if he/ she is not a citizen. The EC is expected to take the citizenship status into account as it updates the rolls. But the law also requires that this be done strictly in line with principles of natural justice and transparency.

The Representation of People’s Act 1950 provides that registration officers must evaluate fresh claims for enrolment only after “proper verification of facts”. A detailed due process is further provided under the Registration of Electors Rules 1960, including notification to claimants, in-person hearing and the recording of reasons.

The L B Hussein case further emphasised the importance of these procedural safeguards. The SC lay down that individuals already on the rolls will be presumed to be citizens. Individuals who are rejected will have to be given reasons why their citizenship is suspect, and then allowed to present evidence to contest that. The court rejected any attempt at limiting the range of documents that individuals could produce to establish citizenship. Finally, the EC must independently apply its mind in each individual case and not rely on external instructions. The court found it unacceptable that the EC relied on generalisations based on police reports.

Procedural safeguards are crucial for upholding the constitutional promise of universal adult franchise. Without due process, there is a danger of abuse of power on the ground and disenfranchisement of the weakest sections of society. The unusually high proportion of individuals being rejected on the ground of not being Indian citizens, without getting a fair opportunity to contest their exclusion, amounts to a crisis for democracy. The Election Commission must immediately respond with a rectification protocol to ensure that citizens do not miss the opportunity to vote.