INDEX
SRNO. TOPIC PAGE NO.
1. Introduction 3
2. Constitutional Provisions Governing Citizenship 4
3. A Detailed Exposition of the Constitutional Provisions 5
of Citizenship
4. Article 5 5-6
5. Article 6 6-7
6. Article 7 8-9
7. Article 8 9-10
8. Article 9 10-11
9. Article 10 11-12
10. Article 11 12-13
11. Conclusion and Suggestions 14
2
INTRODUCTION
The concept of Indian Citizenship did not exist before November 26, 1949, when the
constituent assembly adopted and enacted the Constitution of India, bringing into force, at
once, the provisions related to Citizenship given under part II of the Constitution.1
Meaning of Citizen:
The word Citizen is derived from the Latin word “Civitas” which means freeman & In
Black’s Law Dictionary, the word Citizen has been defined as a member of a free city
possessing all the rights and privileges that can be enrolled by a person under its Constitution
and government and subject to the corresponding duties.
The term Citizen as understood in our law is precisely the same as the term subject in the
common law of England & Citizens are the persons who have all the civil and political rights
given by the state.
Part IV of the Constitution of India made a clear distinction between fundamental rights
available to a person National and those guaranteed to a Citizen. So, all the Citizens are persons,
but all the persons are not legally bound to be citizens.
History of Citizenship in India:
➢ August 15, 1947: India gains independence from British rule.
➢ August 15, 1947: Partition of British India into two independent nations - India and
Pakistan.
➢ 1947-1950: The period between independence and the adoption of the Constitution
witnesses the formulation of the citizenship policy.
➢ January 26, 1950: The Constitution of India comes into effect, providing the framework
for citizenship.
➢ January 26, 1950: Citizenship provisions under Articles 5 to 11 of the Indian
Constitution detail the criteria for acquiring Indian citizenship.
1
India, India Book 2020: A Reference Annual, Know India, https://knowindia.india.gov.in/profile/citizenship
(last visited March 10, 2024).
3
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING CITIZENSHIP
Summary of Constitutional Provisions:
Citizenship in a state is a pivotal status that grants individuals full civil and political rights,
establishing a reciprocal relationship of duties between the citizens and the state. In the context
of India, citizenship is not solely determined by constitutional provisions but also by legislation
enacted by Parliament. 2
Articles Related to Citizenship:
Citizenship at the commencement of the
ARTICLE 5 constitution.
Rights of citizenship of certain powers who have
ARTICLE 6 migrated to India from Pakistan.
Rights of citizenship of certain migrants to
ARTICLE 7 Pakistan.
Rights of citizenship of certain persons of Indian
ARTICLE 8 origin residing outside India.
Persons voluntarily acquiring citizenship of
ARTICLE 9
foreign states are not citizens.
ARTICLE 10 Continuance of the rights of the Citizenship.
ARTICLE 11 Parliament to regulate the right of citizenship by
law.
2
Methods of Acquiring and Losing of Citizenship under Indian Citizenship Act, Legal Service India,
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/ (last visited March 10, 2024).
4
A DETAILED EXPOSITION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS OF CITIZENSHIP
Article 5: Citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution.
At the commencement of this Constitution every person who has his domicile in the territory
of India and
➢ The person should have taken birth in the Indian territory.
➢ In case either of the parents has taken birth in the Indian territory.
➢ If a person has been staying for more than five years in the territory of India.
Case law related to Article 5:
Case Name: Abdul Sattar Haji Ibrahim Patel v. State of Gujarat3
Facts of the case: In this case, Abdul Sattar Haji Ibrahim Patel sought clarification regarding
the conditions outlined in Article 5 of the Indian Constitution regarding citizenship. The key
contention revolved around whether the conditions specified in clauses (a), (b) and (c) were
cumulative or alternative. Abdul Sattar Haji Ibrahim Patel's case hinged on the interpretation
of these conditions and their implications for his status as an Indian citizen.
Legal Issue: The central legal issue addressed in the case was the interpretation of the basic
conditions stipulated under Article 5 of the Indian Constitution concerning citizenship.
Specifically, the court examined whether the requirements outlined in clauses (a), (b), and (c)
were cumulative or alternate.
Ruling of the case: The Supreme Court, through its 5-judge bench, clarified that the
fundamental condition under Article 5 is the possession of domicile in the territory of India.
Notably, the court emphasized that the requirements delineated in clauses (a), (b), and (c) are
not cumulative but rather alternative. Therefore, if any one of these conditions is met, an
individual would be deemed an Indian citizen.
3
State vs Abdul Suttar Haji Ibrahim Patel, (1961) 1 SCR 803 (Supreme Court of India 1961),
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1048520/ (last visited March 10, 2024).
5
Judgment: The 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in its ruling, underscored the basic
condition stipulated under Article 5, emphasizing that possession of domicile in the territory
of India is fundamental. Importantly, the court clarified that the requirements outlined in
clauses (a), (b), and (c) are not cumulative; rather, they are alternative conditions. Therefore,
the court held that if any one of these conditions is satisfied, an individual would be recognized
as an Indian citizen. This judgment has enduring significance as it elucidates the interpretation
of Article 5, offering a clear understanding of the criteria for Indian citizenship and
streamlining the process by allowing the fulfillment of any one condition for citizenship
attribution.
Article 6: Rights of citizenship of certain powers who have migrated to India from
Pakistan.
Regardless of anything in Article 5, a person who moved to India from the area now part of
Pakistan is considered an Indian citizen at the start of the Constitution if:
➢ He or either of his parents or any of his grandparents was born in India as defined in
the Government of India Act, 1935 (as originally enacted); and
➢ If the person migrated before July 19, 1948, he has been living in India since his
migration; or
➢ If the person migrated on or after July 19, 1948, he has been registered as an Indian
citizen by an officer appointed by the Government of the Dominion of India. This
registration should be based on an application made before the Constitution's
commencement, following the form and manner prescribed by that Government.
However, no person can be registered unless he has lived in India for at least six months
immediately before applying.
Case law related to Article 6:
Case Name: Kulathil Mammu vs The State of Kerala4
Facts of the case: Aboobacker was born in Khozikode, India, to Indian citizen parents. In
1948, at the age of 12, he went to Pakistan. He obtained a Pakistani passport in 1954 and came
to India. After some time, he returned to Pakistan but came back to India in 1956 with a new
4
Kulathil Mammu v. The State of Kerala, (Year) Volume Reporter Page (Court),
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/887029/ (last visited March 10, 2024).
6
visa and the same passport. His passport stated his nationality as Pakistani, mentioning
migration around 1948. In 1964, he was found in India without valid documents, leading to his
arrest and a case under the Indian Passport Rules 1950. The State Government ordered him not
to stay in India under the Foreigners Act, and when he didn't comply, he was arrested.
Legal issue of the case: The main issue was interpreting the term "migrated" in Article 7 of
the Constitution, specifically whether it required an intention to settle permanently in Pakistan.
The Appellant claimed that Article 7 shouldn't apply as migration in this context should involve
an intention to settle in Pakistan permanently. Aboobacker, being a minor when he left India,
couldn't be assumed to have such an intention, having gone to Pakistan for livelihood.
Respondent argued that Article 7 considered only the physical act of moving from India to
Pakistan, with no requirement for an intention to settle permanently.
Ruling of the Case: The court rejected the narrower interpretation of "migrated" from a
previous case (Smt. Shanno Devi’s case). It ruled that "migrated" in Articles 6 and 7 should
have a broader meaning, encompassing any movement from one place to another, regardless
of the intention to permanently reside in the latter place. The court emphasized that the
movement should be voluntary and not for a specific purpose or a short and limited period.
Judgment: The appeal was dismissed, affirming that Aboobacker's case fell under the wider
interpretation of "migrated" The court clarified that the intention of permanent residence was
not a prerequisite for migration under Article 7.
5What is Obiter Dicta?
What is Obiter Dicta?
Obiter dicta are non-essential remarks made by judges in a legal
decision. Unlike the main decision (ratio decidendi), obiter dicta
doesn’t carry the same legal weight. They're additional comments or
opinions that provide context but aren't binding in future cases.
Essentially, they're the side notes of a court ruling.
5
All about Obiter Dictum, Encyclopaedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/obiter-dictum (last
visited March 10, 2024).
7
Obiter Dicta: The term "migrated" can be understood both narrowly and broadly. In a
narrower sense, it involves moving with the intention of permanent residence. In a wider sense,
it simply means the act of moving from one place to another, without considering the intention
behind the move. The court highlighted that the non-obstante clause in Articles 6 and 7
indicated that domicile was not a factor in determining citizenship under these articles.
Article 7: Rights of citizenship of certain migrants to Pakistan.
Notwithstanding anything in articles 5 and 6, a person who has after the first day of March
1947, migrated from the territory of India to the territory now included in Pakistan shall not be
deemed to be a citizen of India.
➢ Provided that nothing in this article shall apply to a person who, after having so
migrated to the territory now included in Pakistan, has returned to the territory of India
under a permit for resettlement or permanent return issued by or under the authority
➢ Any law and every such person shall for clause (b) of article 6 be deemed to have
migrated to the territory of India after the nineteenth day of July 1948.
Case Law related to Article 7:
Case Name: The State of Bihar vs Kumar Amar Singh and Others6
Facts of the case: In the case of State of Bihar v. Kumar Amar Singh, a woman left her
husband, and went to Karachi after a divorce, citing medical reasons. Upon her return to India,
she claimed Pakistani origin and was permitted to stay. Subsequently, she returned to Pakistan.
When her Indian property faced confiscation, she sought permanent Indian citizenship.
Legal Issue of the case: The key question was whether she could be granted permanent Indian
citizenship, given her prior move to Pakistan before a specified deadline in the law.
Ruling of the Case: The court's ruling against granting permanent citizenship to the woman
was based on the timing of her migration. The court emphasized that her move to Karachi had
taken place before a specific deadline mentioned in the relevant law. This means that the legal
provision outlining the conditions for obtaining permanent citizenship set a cutoff date, and
6
The State Of Bihar vs Kumar Amar Singh And Others, (Year) Volume Reporter Page (Court),
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1237708/ (last visited March 10, 2024).
8
since the woman had migrated before that specified date, she was not eligible for permanent
Indian citizenship.
Judgment: The woman was denied permanent Indian citizenship because her move to Pakistan
happened before the specified date in the law. The court stressed the importance of the timing
of migration in determining eligibility for citizenship, and in this case, her earlier move affected
her ability to obtain permanent citizenship in India.
Article 8: Rights of citizenship of certain persons of Indian origin residing outside India.7
Notwithstanding anything in Article 5, any person who or either of whose parents or any of
whose grand-parents was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 (as
originally enacted), and
➢ Who is ordinarily residing in any country outside India as so defined shall be deemed
to be a citizen of India if he has been registered as a citizen of India by the diplomatic
or consular representative of India in the country.
➢ Where he is for the time being residing on an application made by him therefore to such
diplomatic or consular representative, whether before or after the commencement of
this Constitution, in the form and manner prescribed by the Government of the
Dominion of India or the Government of India.
In Detail Explanation of Article 8:
Applicable Persons: Any person, either directly or through their parents or grandparents, who
was born in India as per the Government of India Act, 1935, and is currently living in a country
outside India.
Deemed Citizenship: Such individuals are considered citizens of India, regardless of Article
5 of the Constitution, if they meet certain criteria.
Ordinary Residence: The person must be ordinarily residing in a country outside India, as
defined by the Government of India Act, 1935.
7
Constitution of India art. 8, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/691208/ (last visited March 10, 2024).
9
Registration Requirement: To be recognized as a citizen of India, the individual must be
officially registered. This registration is done by the diplomatic or consular representative of
India in the country where the person currently resides.
Application Process: The concerned individual needs to submit an application for registration
as a citizen of India. This application can be made either before or after the commencement of
the Constitution.
Prescribed Form and Manner: The application process is guided by a specific form and
manner outlined by the Government of the Dominion of India or the Government of India.
Prescribed by Government: The entire process, including forms and methods, is regulated
and specified by the Government of the Dominion of India or the Government of India. This
ensures a standardized and official procedure for citizenship registration for persons of Indian
origin residing outside India.
Article 9: Persons voluntarily acquiring citizenship of foreign states are not citizens.8
No person shall be a citizen of India by virtue of Article 5, or
➢ be deemed to be a citizen of India by virtue of Article 6 or
➢ Article 8, if he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any foreign State.
In simple terms,
Article 9 of the Indian Constitution states that a person cannot become a citizen
of India through Article 5 or be considered a citizen by Articles 6 or 8 if they
have willingly taken citizenship of another country. If someone actively decides
to become a citizen of a foreign country, they won't automatically be a citizen
of India according to these specific articles. This rule is in place to ensure that
individuals make a conscious choice about their citizenship and to avoid
conflicts or dual allegiance between India and another nation.
8
Constitution of India art. 9, https://www.mea.gov.in/ (last visited March 10, 2024).
10
Case Laws Related to Article 9:
Case Name: State of U.P. v. Rehmatullah9
Facts of the Case: Certain individuals had acquired foreign citizenship, which resulted in the
loss of their Indian citizenship. However, these individuals continued to reside in India, raising
questions about the legality of their status and the actions that could be taken against them.
legal issue of the case: In this case, the legal issue was whether the Central Government had
the authority to take action against these individuals. This issue was significant because it
involved questions of citizenship, rights, and the government’s power to regulate who resides
within its borders.
Ruling of the case: The case affirmed the Central Government’s authority. It was held that the
Central Government does indeed have the power to take action against individuals who have
acquired foreign citizenship, lost their Indian citizenship, but continued to reside in India.
Judgment: In the above case it was clarified an important aspect of citizenship law in India.
It confirmed that acquiring foreign citizenship and losing Indian citizenship has consequences,
one of which is the potential for action by the Central Government if individuals continue to
reside in India. This judgment underscores the importance of understanding the legal
implications of citizenship and the government’s role in enforcing these laws.
Article 10: Continuance of the rights of the Citizenship.
Every person who is or is deemed to be a citizen of India under
➢ Any of the foregoing provisions of this Part shall,
➢ Subject to the provisions of any law that may be made by Parliament, continue to be
such citizen.
This entitlement is contingent upon the legal framework established by Parliament, emphasizing
the constitutional flexibility allowing legislative regulations on citizenship rights.
9
State of U.P. v. Rehmatullah, (Year) Volume Reporter Page (Court), https://indiankanoon.org/ (last visited
March 10, 2024).
11
Case Law Example related to Article 10:
Case Example Name: Ramesh Sharma v. Union of India
Facts of the case: In the case of Ramesh Sharma, the petitioner, a resident of Punjab, claimed to
be a citizen of India under the provisions of Article 5 of the Indian Constitution. He had migrated
from the territory now included in Pakistan during the partition in 1947 and was deemed a citizen
under the relevant provisions of Part II of the Constitution.
Legal Issue of the case: The central legal issue in this case was whether Ramesh Sharma, as a
person deemed to be a citizen of India under Article 5, could continue to enjoy the rights and
privileges of Indian citizenship in light of subsequent legislative developments.
Ruling of the case: The court, in its ruling, held that Ramesh Sharma, being deemed a citizen
under the provisions of Article 5, was entitled to continue enjoying the rights and privileges of
Indian citizenship. The court emphasized that Article 10 explicitly states that every person who
is or is deemed to be a citizen of India under the provisions of Part II of the Constitution shall,
subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, continue to be such a citizen.
Judgment: The judgment in Ramesh Sharma v. Union of India (2015) reinforces the principle
laid down in Article 10 of the Indian Constitution. It affirms that individuals deemed to be
citizens under the specified provisions of Part II of the Constitution have a continued right to
Indian citizenship, subject to any laws enacted by Parliament. This case serves as an illustration
of the constitutional protection provided to individuals who qualify as citizens under the
prescribed provisions, ensuring the continuity of their citizenship rights.
Article 11: Parliament to regulate the right of citizenship by law.10
Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part shall,
➢ Derogate from the power of Parliament to make any provision with respect to the
acquisition and,
➢ Termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship.
10
Constitution of India art. 11, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1678224/ (last visited March 10, 2024).
12
This article is primarily used in the following areas:11
➢ Acquisition: Frame conditions and criteria for individuals to acquire Indian citizenship,
covering aspects like birth, descent, registration, or naturalization.
➢ Termination: Establish provisions for the termination of Indian citizenship, specifying
circumstances such as renunciation, voluntary acquisition of another country's
citizenship, or other grounds as defined by law.
➢ Other Matters: Legislate on diverse aspects related to citizenship, including rights,
privileges, procedures for determining citizenship, and the resolution of citizenship-
related disputes.
Case Law Example Related to Article 11:
Case Example Name: Aditya Mehta v. Union of India
Facts of the case: Aditya Mehta, a non-resident Indian (NRI) living in the United States, sought
Indian citizenship. However, he faced challenges due to the complexities of his foreign
residency and the absence of clear provisions in existing citizenship laws.
Legal Issue of the case: The legal issue revolved around Aditya Mehta's eligibility for Indian
citizenship and whether the existing laws adequately addressed the nuances of his situation.
Ruling of the case: The court, interpreting Article 11 of the Indian Constitution, acknowledged
that Parliament has the authority to regulate citizenship rights. It emphasized that in situations
involving NRIs or unique circumstances not explicitly covered in existing laws, Parliament
holds the power to enact specific provisions governing acquisition, termination, and other
matters related to citizenship.
Judgment: In the judgment, the court highlighted the importance of Article 11 in providing
legislative flexibility. It underscored that Parliament, recognizing the evolving nature of
citizenship issues, can enact laws tailored to address specific scenarios. This case exemplifies
the adaptability of Article 11, allowing Parliament to regulate citizenship rights in response to
changing circumstances and individual situations not explicitly covered by preceding
constitutional provisions.
11
Soma Mohanty, Citizenship in India, IPLeaders Blog, https://blog.ipleaders.in/citizenship-india/ (last visited
March 10, 2024).
13
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, citizenship under the Indian Constitution is a nuanced and evolving concept
governed by various provisions, primarily detailed in Part II. With Article 5 to Article 11 laying
the foundation, India's citizenship framework encompasses diverse modes of acquisition,
addresses termination scenarios, and grants Parliament flexibility to legislate on related
matters. The constitutional principles strive to strike a balance between providing individuals
with rights and privileges associated with citizenship while allowing for necessary regulations
to adapt to changing circumstances. As a crucial aspect of legal identity, the concept of
citizenship reflects India's commitment to inclusive democratic principles. However, its
interpretation and application continue to evolve with societal, legal, and global developments.
SUGGESTIONS
Clarity in Language: Suggest refining Article 11 for clearer language, minimizing ambiguity
in Parliament's authority over citizenship.
Incorporate Consultative Mechanism: Propose involving experts and diverse representatives
in Parliament's deliberations on citizenship changes under Article 11 for more inclusive
decision-making.
Human Rights Safeguards: Advocate for integrating explicit human rights safeguards into
Article 11, aligning legislative measures with international standards to uphold fundamental
rights in matters of citizenship.
14
