Unpacking India’s Citizenship Amendment Act: Controversies, Rules, And International Reactions

INTRODUCTION

Citizenship refers to the legal status of being a member of a particular country, entitling individuals to certain rights, privileges, and responsibilities within that nation. It encompasses the right to vote, work, live, and participate in the political and social life of a country as well as the obligation to obey its laws and support its government. Citizenship can be acquired by birth, descent, naturalization, or through other legal processes defined by a country’s laws.

CONCEPT OF CITIZENSHIP

Citizenship, a fundamental aspect of legal identity, holds significant importance in India as it does globally. Governed by the Citizenship Act of 1955, Indian citizenship embodies a complex framework comprising acquisition by birth, descent, registration, and naturalization. Birthright citizenship extends to those born within specified timelines, while descent citizenship extends to the offspring of Indian citizens. Additionally, individuals of Indian origin can obtain citizenship through registration, while foreigners may naturalize after fulfilling residency and eligibility criteria. Integral to citizenship are rights such as voting and holding public office, coupled with responsibilities including adherence to laws and contributing to the nation’s welfare, reflecting the nuanced interplay between legal status and civic duty in the Indian context.

HISTORICAL CONCEPT:

The Citizenship Act of India, enacted in 1955, was a significant legislative milestone that formalized the criteria for acquiring Indian citizenship. Before independence, Indians were considered British subjects without citizenship rights, and the British Citizenship and Alien Rights Act of 1914 governed legal status. However, with the partition of India in 1947, which led to widespread population displacement and migration, the need arose to address citizenship for the affected populations.

Initially, the Constituent Assembly, tasked with drafting the Indian Constitution, included limited provisions related to citizenship to address the immediate concerns of determining the citizenship status of migrants. However, recognizing the importance of having a comprehensive legal framework for citizenship, the Parliament passed the Citizenship Act in 1955.

This Act laid out specific provisions regarding the acquisition, renunciation, and termination of Indian citizenship. It established criteria for citizenship by birth, descent, registration, and naturalization, providing clarity and legal certainty to individuals seeking Indian citizenship. Additionally, the Act addressed issues related to dual citizenship, overseas citizenship, and the rights and duties of citizens.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Article 5: Citizenship at the Commencement of the Constitution:

Individuals with domicile in Indian territory are granted citizenship if they were born in India if either of their parents was born in India, or if they have resided in India for at least five years prior to the Constitution’s commencement.

Article 6: Citizenship of Certain Persons Who Have Migrated from Pakistan:

Individuals who migrated from Pakistan and have ancestral ties to India, as per the Government of India Act of 1935, are granted citizenship if they have been residing in India since their migration before July 19, 1948, or if they were registered as citizens by a designated officer before the Constitution’s commencement.

Article 7: Citizenship of Certain Migrants to Pakistan:

Addresses the citizenship rights of individuals who migrated to Pakistan after March 1, 1947, but later returned to India.

Article 8: Citizenship of Certain Persons of Indian Origin Residing Outside India:

Grants certain rights to people of Indian origin living outside India, particularly for purposes such as employment, marriage, and education.

Article 9: Voluntary Acquisition of Foreign Citizenship:

Individuals who voluntarily acquire citizenship in a foreign country are not considered citizens of India.

Article 10: Continuation of Citizenship:

Individuals who are citizens of India under any provision of these articles continue to be citizens and are subject to laws enacted by the Parliament.

Article 11: Parliament's Authority to Regulate Citizenship:

Gives the Parliament the power to legislate on matters related to the acquisition, termination, and regulation of citizenship, providing flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances and needs.

ACT OF 1955

The Citizenship Act of 1955 outlines five methods by which individuals can acquire Indian citizenship: birth, descent, registration, naturalization, and territorial incorporation.

By Birth:

• Individuals born in India between January 26, 1950, and July 1, 1987, are automatically Indian citizens, regardless of their parents’ nationality.
• From July 1, 1987, onward, individuals born in India are citizens only if at least one parent is an Indian citizen at the time of their birth.
• Since December 3, 2004, both parents must be Indian citizens or one must be an Indian citizen and the other not an illegal migrant for their children born in India to acquire citizenship.

By Registration:

The Central Government can register individuals as Indian citizens if they meet certain criteria, such as being of Indian origin and residing in India for a specified period.

By Descent:

Individuals born outside India are Indian citizens if their father was an Indian citizen at the time of their birth, before December 10, 1992. After this date, either parent being an Indian citizen qualifies the child for citizenship.

By Naturalization:

Individuals can acquire citizenship through naturalization if they have been residing in India for 12 years and fulfil specific qualifications outlined in the Citizenship Act.

By Territorial Incorporation:

When a foreign territory becomes part of India, the government specifies who among the inhabitants will become Indian citizens.

Moreover, the Act does not allow for dual citizenship, and amendments over the years have refined citizenship criteria, particularly regarding birthright citizenship. Additionally, the Foreigners Act places the burden of proving citizenship on the individual to avoid being classified as a foreigner.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CITIZENSHIP AND DOMICILE

AMENDMENTS TO THE ACT OF 1955

1986 Amendment:

• Limited the principle of citizenship by birth (jus soli) by adding conditions.
• Individuals born in India between January 26, 1950, and July 1, 1987, were granted citizenship.
• Those born after July 1, 1987, required at least one parent to be an Indian citizen.

2003 Amendment:

• Further tightened citizenship criteria due to concerns about infiltration from Bangladesh.
• From December 4, 2004, both parents needed to be Indian citizens, or one parent must be Indian while the other should not be an illegal migrant.

2015 Amendment:

Introduced a new scheme merging the Persons of Indian Origin (PIO) and Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card schemes.

2019 Amendment:

• Proposed to grant citizenship to members of six religious communities from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan who entered India before December 31, 2014.
• Reduces the residency requirement for citizenship from 11 years to 5 years for these communities.
• Exempts these migrants from the Passport Act and Foreigners Act.
• Controversial due to concerns that it might grant citizenship to Bangladeshi Hindu migrants, sparking protests in Assam.
• The justification provided is that these communities face religious persecution in their home countries, unlike Muslims who are the majority there.

Citizenship Amendment Act, 2024 rules:

The Citizenship Amendment Act 2024 rules, aligned with the 2019 amendment to the Citizenship Act of 1955, aim to grant citizenship to migrants from Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Bangladesh belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian communities who entered India before December 31, 2014.

CAA-NRC-NPR WHAT ARE THESE?

1.Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA):

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) is a piece of legislation passed by the Indian Parliament in December 2019. It amends the Citizenship Act of 1955 to provide a path to Indian citizenship for certain religious minorities who migrated from neighboring Muslim-majority countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan before December 31, 2014. The CAA specifically targets Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians from these countries. 

The key provisions of the CAA include granting citizenship to eligible migrants who entered India on or before December 31, 2014, and who have suffered “religious persecution” or fear of religious persecution in their country of origin. It reduces the residency requirement for naturalization from twelve years to just six for these migrants.

Critics of the CAA argue that it discriminates against Muslims by excluding them from the list of eligible religious communities, thereby violating the secular principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution. They also raise concerns about its potential impact on the country’s social fabric and the constitutional right to equality.

Supporters of the CAA maintain that it provides relief to persecuted religious minorities who have faced discrimination in their home countries. They argue that it upholds India’s humanitarian values and provides a pathway to citizenship for those who have been marginalized and oppressed in neighbouring nations.

2.National Register of Citizens (NRC):

The National Register of Citizens is an official record of all valid citizens residing in India. The concept of the NRC originated in Assam in 2013 under the supervision of the Supreme Court and is maintained by the Office of the Registrar General of India (ORGI), under the Ministry of Home Affairs. Presently, the NRC is applicable only in Assam, but the government has expressed its intention to implement it nationwide.

The primary objective of the NRC is to identify and exclude individuals who are residing illegally in India. The central government aims to update the National Register of Citizens to safeguard the rights and resources of Indian citizens and to identify undocumented immigrants living unlawfully in the country. The NRC process will be entirely impartial, ensuring that only legitimate Indian citizens are included in the register.

To participate in the NRC, individuals will be required to provide various personal documents to establish their claims for citizenship. These documents may include an Aadhar card, birth certificate, passport, citizenship certificate, refugee registration, or any other valid identification issued by the government, along with proof of permanent address.

The demand to update the NRC in Assam has been raised since 1975 by the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU). The Assam Accord of 1985 was formed to identify and deport Bangladeshi migrants who entered the state after midnight on March 24, 1971, the eve of Bangladesh’s independence. The NRC process in Assam aims to determine the citizenship status of individuals residing in the state before March 25, 1971, who are recognized as Assam’s citizens. It is necessary to identify individuals who are residing unlawfully in India.

The NRC has been controversial due to concerns about exclusion, discrimination, and its impact on marginalized communities.

3.National Population Register (NPR):-

The National Population Register is essentially a database that aims to compile comprehensive information about every resident of India, regardless of their citizenship status. It includes details such as names, dates of birth, places of birth, names of parents, marital status, educational qualifications, occupation, current address, duration of stay at the current address, and other relevant demographic information.

The NPR is created and maintained at various administrative levels, including local (village/ward), sub-district, district, state, and national levels. The data collection process typically involves door-to-door surveys and interviews conducted by trained enumerators.

One of the key features of the NPR is that it includes both Indian citizens and foreign nationals residing in India. However, it’s important to note that the NPR does not confer citizenship; rather, it serves as a repository of demographic information for administrative purposes.

The NPR has been periodically updated, with the most recent update planned alongside the Census of India in 2021. This updated data helps the government in planning and implementing various welfare programs, development initiatives, and policymaking. Concerns have been raised about the NPR’s potential connection to the NRC and its implications for citizenship verification, leading to debates and controversies surrounding its implementation.

HISTORY OF THE BILLS:-

The concept of implementing NRC, NPR, and CAA in India was aimed at establishing a comprehensive record of the country’s population and providing citizenship to persecuted minorities from neighbouring nations. The National Register of Citizens holds significant importance for India as it serves as a clear distinction between those who are legitimate Indian citizens and those who have been residing illegally in the country. In states like Assam, where there’s a significant presence of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, the NRC has been instrumental in identifying and addressing this issue. It’s crucial for all states in India to maintain an updated NRC every ten years to accurately assess the population and distinguish between legal and illegal residents. This information is essential for various purposes, including resource allocation and ensuring that people receive their rights appropriately. While the idea initially had merit, it eventually became highly controversial due to various reasons, losing its intended focus along the way.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES:

On December 11, 2019, the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 was approved by Parliament after passing the Rajya Sabha vote with 125 votes in favour and 105 against. Despite the NDA’s minority position in the Upper House, the bill received support from allied parties like the AIADMK, while the Shiv Sena chose to walk out before voting.

The debate in the Rajya Sabha, lasting seven hours, centred on concerns regarding the bill’s constitutional validity, selection of countries, cut-off date, potential discrimination against Muslims, its relation to the proposed NRC, and its impact on the country’s social fabric. Opposition members accused the government of violating constitutional provisions and warned of potential legal challenges. They also highlighted violent protests in Assam and Tripura against the bill.

In response, Union Home Minister Amit Shah clarified that the bill aimed to grant citizenship to refugees without revoking anyone’s citizenship. He assured Indian Muslims that the bill did not discriminate against them and emphasized that India would never be “Muslim-free”. However, he clarified that the bill prioritized persecuted minorities from neighbouring countries.

The support of key parties like the AIADMK, JD(U), and BJD, along with the absence of two NCP and BSP MPs, facilitated the bill’s passage. Amit Shah addressed concerns about differentiating between illegal migrants and persecuted individuals, stating that those persecuted could apply for citizenship from their date of entry.

Opposition MPs questioned the government’s lack of authentic records on persecuted individuals and criticized the differentiation between religions in granting citizenship. They accused the government of targeting a specific religion and questioned the validity of the bill. Amit Shah countered by highlighting the granting of citizenship to Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan during the Congress regime and expressed confidence in the bill’s legality.

Thus, in a nutshell, we can say that the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 in Parliament sparked heated debates, with supporters emphasizing refugee rights and critics raising concerns about discrimination and constitutional validity.

RULES LAID DOWN BY THE GOVERNMENT:

The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 allows individuals belonging to six minority communities from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh to apply for Indian citizenship if they migrated to India before December 31, 2014, due to religious persecution. 

Steps to be followed:

1.  Apply electronically to the Empowered Committee through the District Level Committee notified by the Central Government.
2. Upon submission, an acknowledgment will be generated electronically.
3. The District Level Committee, led by the Designated Officer, will verify the applicant’s documents.
4. The Designated Officer will administer the oath of allegiance to the applicant and forward it electronically, along with document verification confirmation to the Empowered Committee.
5.  If the applicant fails to appear in person despite reasonable opportunities, the District Level Committee will forward the application to the Empowered Committee for consideration of refusal.
6. The Empowered Committee will scrutinize the application to ensure completeness and compliance with Section 6B conditions.
7. The Empowered Committee may grant citizenship if satisfied after an inquiry that the applicant is suitable.

Special documents required include:

1. An affidavit verifying the application’s correctness, along with an affidavit from an Indian citizen testifying to the applicant’s character.
2. A declaration from the applicant confirming adequate knowledge of one language specified in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution.

WHY ARE THEY IMPLEMENTING IT RIGHT BEFORE THE LOK SABHA POLLS

The government’s decision to implement the rules of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 right before the Lok Sabha Elections can be seen from different perspectives:

1. Fulfilling Election Promise: The BJP, in its 2019 LS poll manifesto, had promised to implement the CAA. By notifying the rules just before the elections, the government can be seen as fulfilling its electoral promise, which may resonate positively with certain voter segments.
2. Political Strategy: Some opposition leaders, like Jairam Ramesh, have criticized the timing, alleging that it’s designed to polarize voters, especially in states like West Bengal and Assam. By bringing up contentious issues like the CAA before elections, parties may aim to consolidate their support base or attract certain voter demographics.
3. Headline Management: The notification of CAA rules comes amidst other significant events, including scrutiny over the electoral bond scandal. Some see it as an attempt by the government to divert attention or manage headlines after facing criticism in other areas.
4. Strategic Move: With the Lok Sabha Elections approaching, implementing the CAA could be a strategic move to address the concerns of certain communities, especially those who migrated from neighbouring countries due to religious persecution. It could also influence voter sentiments, particularly in states where these communities hold significant electoral sway.
5. COVID-19 Impact: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted various aspects of governance and policymaking, leading to delays in implementing certain initiatives. It’s possible that the government’s focus on managing the pandemic initially delayed the rollout of the CAA rules. With the situation improving and elections looming, the government may have seized the opportunity to push forward with its agenda.

CONTROVERSIES:

ARGUMENTS AGAINST CAA

1.Targeting Muslims:

    Critics argue that the CAA discriminates against Muslims by specifically granting citizenship to migrants from certain religions while excluding others.

    The Act fails to include persecuted Muslim groups such as Shias, Ahmadiyyas, and Hazaras, raising concerns about fairness and equality.

2.Violation of Article 14:

    Critics contend that the CAA violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality.

    The Act is seen as discriminatory as it categorizes individuals based on religion, which is not permissible under Article 14.

3.Concerns in Northeastern States:

    In the Northeast, there are fears of demographic change, loss of livelihood opportunities, and erosion of indigenous culture due to the potential influx of migrants.

    The Act is perceived to violate the Assam Accord, which set a cutoff date for detecting and deporting illegal immigrants irrespective of their religion.

4.Exclusion of Certain Groups and Countries:

    Jews, atheists, and persecuted groups from countries like Myanmar and Sri Lanka are not included in the Act.

    The basis for excluding neighboring countries like Nepal, Bhutan, and Myanmar is unclear, particularly when Bhutan is constitutionally a religious state.

5.Focus on Religious Persecution:

The Act’s focus on religious persecution neglects other forms of persecution, such as political persecution, raising questions about fairness and inclusivity.

6.Unequal Treatment of Immigrants:

Critics argue that the Act prioritizes certain groups over others, granting citizenship to some while denying it to others who may equally deserve protection.

7.Reduction in Residential Requirement:

The Act reduces the residency requirement for naturalization from 11 years to 5 years, without clear justification for the chosen timeframe.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF CAA

1.Not Against Muslims:

• The CAA does not specifically target Muslims. Muslims from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan can still seek Indian citizenship through naturalization, provided they meet the eligibility criteria.
• The Act aims to provide refuge to persecuted minorities from these countries, regardless of their religion.

2.Compliance with Article 14:

• The Act does not violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality. The regulation of citizenship and entry of foreigners is considered a sovereign prerogative, largely immune from judicial intervention.
• Courts in India have upheld the government’s authority to refuse citizenship and regulate the entry of foreigners.

3.North East Reassurances:

• The CAA does not compromise the Assam Accord’s stipulated cutoff date of March 24, 1971, for detecting and deporting illegal immigrants.
•  It applies to the entire country and is not Assam-centric. The Act is compatible with the National Register of Citizens and aims to protect indigenous communities from illegal immigration.

4.Historical Connections:

• The Act’s focus on providing citizenship to minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan is justified by their historical and civilizational ties with India.
•  These countries have witnessed a decline in minority populations since partition, necessitating special consideration for their persecuted minorities.
• Including other neighboring countries may be addressed separately if needed, as was done in the case of persecuted Sri Lankan Tamils.

PROTESTS:-

The protests erupted across India following the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act by the Narendra Modi-led government, just days before the announcement of the Lok Sabha Elections in 2024. The law, criticized for alleged discrimination against Muslims, sparked demonstrations in various states, including Assam, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala.

In Assam, concerns centered around potential increased migration from neighbouring Muslim-majority Bangladesh, leading to protests and a call for a state-wide strike. Similarly, in Tamil Nadu, protesters expressed their opposition through candlelight marches. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) in Kerala also called for protests against what they termed a “communal and divisive law”.

Opposition parties, including the Congress party, criticized the timing of the law’s implementation, alleging political motives ahead of the elections. There were also concerns raised about the law’s constitutionality and its potential to target Muslims, especially when coupled with the proposed National Register of Citizens.

Muslim organizations and rights groups feared that the CAA-NRC combination could lead to the removal of citizenship for Muslims without proper documentation, particularly in border states. The protests reflected a broader sentiment against what was perceived as discriminatory legislation and attempts to undermine constitutional principles of equality and secularism.

Despite government assurances that the CAA aimed to provide citizenship to persecuted minorities from neighbouring countries, opponents argued that it was unconstitutional and morally incorrect to determine citizenship based on religion. Legal challenges were filed, and opposition leaders emphasized the need to repeal the law, framing it as a threat to India’s inclusive identity and foundational principles established by its founding leaders.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

The Citizenship Amendment Act has been a subject of intense debate and criticism since its inception. 

1. Discriminatory Nature: One of the primary criticisms of the CAA is its perceived discriminatory nature. By offering expedited citizenship to specific religious groups while excluding Muslims, the Act is seen as violating the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in India’s Constitution and international human rights norms.
2. Undermining Secularism: India is constitutionally secular and the CAA’s exclusionary approach based on religion contradicts this foundational principle. Critics argue that by favouring certain religious groups, the Act undermines India’s secular fabric and sets a dangerous precedent for religious-based discrimination in citizenship laws.
3. Potential for Exclusion: The CAA, when combined with the proposed National Register of Citizens, raises concerns about the potential exclusion and marginalization of Muslim citizens. Critics fear that the CAA-NRC combination could lead to the disenfranchisement of Muslims who may struggle to provide sufficient documentation to prove their citizenship.
4. International Criticism: The criticism of the CAA extends beyond India’s borders, with international bodies such as the United Nations and Amnesty International expressing concerns about its discriminatory nature and potential human rights implications. Such criticism underscores the global implications of India’s domestic policies and their alignment with international human rights standards.
5.  Impact on Social Cohesion: The contentious nature of the CAA has sparked widespread protests and social unrest across India, indicating its divisive impact on society. The Act has exacerbated communal tensions and polarized communities, posing challenges to social cohesion and harmony.
6.  Legal and Constitutional Concerns: There are also legal and constitutional concerns surrounding the CAA, including questions about its compatibility with India’s constitutional values and international human rights obligations. The Act’s passage and implementation have faced legal challenges, reflecting broader uncertainties about its legitimacy and legality.
7. Regional and Diplomatic Implications: The CAA’s focus on providing citizenship to persecuted minorities from specific neighbouring countries, namely Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, has the potential to strain diplomatic relations with these countries. By explicitly singling out these countries and certain religious groups, India risks politicizing issues of religious persecution and migration, which could impact regional dynamics and diplomatic ties.
8. Interference in Internal Affairs of Other Countries: The CAA’s implementation could lead to accusations of interference in the internal affairs of neighbouring countries, particularly if it is perceived as incentivizing religious migration or exacerbating religious tensions within these countries. This could complicate India’s foreign policy objectives and diplomatic engagements in the region, potentially undermining efforts to promote stability and cooperation.
9. Threat to India’s Reputation: The Act’s exclusionary approach may also impact India’s image on the international stage, raising concerns about its commitment to secularism, pluralism, and human rights. This could have broader implications for India’s standing in the global community and its ability to engage effectively with international partners on various issues, including trade, security, and development.
10. Contribution to Ongoing Debates: The Citizenship Amendment Act’s regional and diplomatic implications add another layer of complexity to the already contentious debate surrounding the Act, highlighting the need for a comprehensive and nuanced approach to address its potential repercussions both domestically and internationally.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

1.India vs. UK

The Citizenship Amendment Act rules of 2024 in India and the citizenship concept in the United Kingdom diverge in several key aspects. While the CAA rules target persecuted religious minorities from specific countries, namely Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, offering a pathway to Indian citizenship based on religious grounds, the UK’s citizenship concept encompasses a broader range of criteria and pathways to citizenship, including birth, descent, naturalization, and registration. Unlike India’s general stance against dual citizenship, the UK generally permits dual citizenship, allowing individuals to hold British citizenship alongside citizenship from another country. Residency requirements, integration expectations, and language proficiency criteria also differ between the two countries. Despite both providing pathways to citizenship, their approaches reflect distinct national contexts and priorities.

2.India vs. USA

The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2024 in India provides a pathway to citizenship for persecuted minorities from neighboring countries, specifically Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh who entered India before December 31, 2014. 

The United States has a more flexible approach to citizenship. Citizenship in the United States can be acquired through various means, including birth within the United States or birth to U.S. citizen parents abroad, among others. Additionally, individuals can acquire U.S. citizenship through naturalization, a process by which non-citizens voluntarily become citizens after meeting certain requirements. 

In India, while there is no provision for dual citizenship, individuals of Indian origin living abroad can acquire Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) or Person of Indian Origin (PIO) status, which grants certain rights while retaining their citizenship of another country. In contrast, the United States allows for dual citizenship, enabling individuals to hold citizenship of both the United States and another country simultaneously. 

3.India vs. Philippines

The Citizenship Amendment Act 2024 provides citizenship to persecuted minorities from neighboring countries, such as Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, who entered India before December 31, 2014. However, India does not recognize dual citizenship, meaning individuals cannot hold citizenship of India and another country simultaneously.

In contrast, the Philippines follows the principle of jus sanguinis, meaning citizenship is primarily determined by bloodline or descent. Filipino citizens are those who have Filipino parents, regardless of where they are born. Additionally, the Philippines allows for dual citizenship, meaning individuals can hold citizenship of the Philippines and another country at the same time. This allows Filipinos who have acquired citizenship in another country to retain their Filipino citizenship. 

4.India vs. Japan

Japan has a limited form of jus soli, where children born to stateless parents or parents who are unknown or cannot pass on their nationality automatically acquire Japanese citizenship. However, birth within Japan’s territory does not confer citizenship to individuals born to foreign nationals who are not stateless.

The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2024 provides citizenship to persecuted minorities from neighboring countries, such as Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, who entered India before December 31, 2014. However, India does not recognize dual citizenship.

Japan follows the principle of jus sanguinis, which determines citizenship primarily by bloodline or descent. Japanese citizenship is generally conferred through descent from Japanese parents and the country has strict naturalization requirements for those seeking citizenship through other means. Japan does not permit dual citizenship and individuals are required to renounce their original citizenship upon naturalization as Japanese citizens. Additionally, Japan does not have provisions specifically targeting refugees or persecuted minorities for citizenship acquisition. Citizenship in Japan is primarily based on lineage and strict adherence to naturalization procedures.

CONCLUSION

The Citizenship Amendment Act of 2024, with its focus on providing expedited citizenship to persecuted religious minorities from neighbouring countries, has sparked significant debate and controversy since its implementation. Critics argue that the act undermines India’s secular principles by introducing a religious criterion for citizenship, potentially fuelling social divisions and communal tensions. The international community has also expressed concerns about the CAA’s compatibility with human rights standards and India’s reputation as a pluralistic democracy.

Comparing the CAA of 2024 with the foundational Citizenship Act of 1955 reveals significant differences in approach and implications. While the CAA introduces religious considerations into the citizenship process, the Citizenship Act of 1955 upholds principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment under the law. 

Therefore, the implementation of the CAA has raised complex questions about citizenship, identity, and inclusivity in India. As debates continue and legal challenges unfold, the implications of the CAA for social cohesion, international relations, and constitutional principles remain subjects of intense scrutiny and discussion.