UNIT-I

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
NATURE OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION
Every constitution aims to build up a governmental structure based upon certain basic principles.
And these principles are more or less well established. Although some of these principles are
common to most constitution, there are others which vary from constitution to constitution. The
Constitution of India is not an exception to this rule and it has its own basic principles.The
Constitution of India establishes a federal system of government. It contains all the usual features
of a federation, such as two governments, division of powers, written constitution, and the
supremacy of the constitution, the rigidity of the Constitution, independent judiciary and
bicameralism. As per traditional classification followed by the political scientists, Constitutions
are either unitary or federal. In a unitary Constitution the powers of the Government are centralised
in one government viz, the Central Government. The provinces are subordinate to the Centre. In a
federal Constitution, on the other hand, there is a division of powers between the Federal and the
State Governments and both are independent in their own spheres.
There is a difference of opinion amongst the constitutional jurists about the nature of the Indian
Constitution. One view is that it is a quasi-federal constitution and contains more unitary features
than federal. The other view is that it is a federal constitution with a novel feature adopting itself
to national emergencies. The view of the framers of the Constitution is that the Indian Constitution
is a Federal Constitution. Dr. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, observed thus,
"I think it is agreed that our Constitution notwithstanding the many provisions which are contained
in it whereby the Centre has been given powers to override the Provinces (States) nonetheless, is
a Federal Constitution ". But some constitutional jurists hesitate to characterize the Indian
Constitution as federal. It is, therefore, necessary to ascertain firstly, what federal Constitution is
and what are its essential characteristics, and secondly, to examine whether our Constitution
possesses those characteristics.

FEDERAL PRINCIPLE —"By the Federal Principles", Prof. Wheare observes, "is meant the
method of dividing powers, so that the general and regional Governments are each within a sphere
co-ordinate and independent. Both the federal and the regional Governments are co - ordinate and
independent in their spheres and not subordinate to one another". The American Constitution is
universally regarded as an example of federal Constitution. It establishes dual polity or dual form
of Government, i.e., the Federal and the State Governments. The powers of both the Central and
the State Governments, are divided and both are independent in their own spheres. The existence
of co -ordinate authorities independent of each other is the gist of the federal principle. Prof.
Wheare, after giving the above definition as to what the federal principle is, himself proceeds to
examine whether the American Constitution satisfies the above test. He observes: "Are we to
confine the forms to cases where the federal principle has been applied completely and without
exception? It would not be sensible to do this. After all, the Constitution of the United States itself,
as originally drawn up contained at least exception to the federal principle in that the Senate was
composed of representative selected by the Legislatures of the State. Thus a part of the general
Government of the United States was dependent to some extent upon a part of the regional
Government. This exception to the federal principle was maintained in law until 1913. Yet the
American Constitution from 1787-1913 was and must be called a "federal Constitution" for the
federal principle was predominant in it. Thus the criterion is "the federal principle predominant in
the constitution! If so, that Constitution may be called a "federal Constitution". If, on the other
hand, there are so many modifications, in the application of the federal principle that it ceases to
be of any significance, then the Constitution cannot be termed as federal. This appears to be the
most instructive and responsible way in which to use the term 'federal Constitution'. It seems
essential to define federal principle rigidly, but to apply the term 'federal Constitution' more
widely. Thus Dr. Wheare accepts that exceptions are permissible provided federal principle is
predominantly retained in the Constitution.

ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF A FEDERAL CONSTITUTION

A federal Constitution usually has the following essential characteristics: —

(1) Distribution of Powers— The distribution of powers is an essential feature of federalism.

Federalism means the distribution of the powers of the State among a number of co-ordinate bodies
each originating in and controlled by the Constitution. The basis of such distribution of powers is
that in matters of national importance, in which a uniform policy is desirable in the interest of the
units, authority is entrusted to the Union, and matters of local concern remain with the States.
(2) Supremacy of Constitution — A federal State derives its existence from the Constitution, just
as a Corporation derives its existence from the grant by which it is created. Hence, every power,
executive, legislative or judicial whether it belongs to the nation or to the individual State is
subordinate to and controlled by the Constitution. The Constitution in a federal State constitutes
the supreme law of the land. Prof. Wheare says' that those two institutions—the supreme
Constitution and the written constitution are then, essential institutions to a federal Government.
The supreme Constitution is essential if Government is to be federal; the written Constitution is
essential if federal Government is to work well.
(3) A Written Constitution — A federal constitution must almost necessarily be a written
Constitution. The foundations of a federal State are complicated contracts. It will be practically
impossible to maintain the supremacy of the Constitution unless the terms of the Constitution have
been reduced into writing. To base an arrangement of this kind upon understandings or conventions
would be certain to generate misunderstandings and disagreements.
(4) Rigidity —Natural corollary of a written constitution is its rigidity. A constitution which is the
supreme law of the land must also be rigid. In a rigid Constitution the procedure of amendment is
very complicated and difficult. This does not mean that the Constitution should be legally
unalterable. It simply means that the power of amending the Constitution should not remain
exclusively with either the Central or State Governments. A Constitution of a country is considered
to be a permanent document. It is the supreme law of the land. This supremacy of the Constitution
can only be maintained if the method of amendment is rigid.
(5) Authority of Courts —In a federal State the legal supremacy of the Constitution is essential
for the existence of the federal system. The very nature of a federal State involves a division of
powers between the Central and State Governments under the framework of the Constitution. It is,
therefore, essential to maintain this division of powers between the two levels of Governments.
This must be done by some independent and impartial authority above and beyond the ordinary
bodies whether federal or State legislatures existing under the Constitution. The judiciary has, in
a federal polity, the final power to interpret the Constitution and guard the entrenched provisions
of the Constitution.
The Indian Constitution possesses all the essential characteristics of a federal Constitution
mentioned above. The Constitution establishes a dual polity, a system of double Government with
the Central Government at one level and the State Government at the other. There is a division of
powers between the Central and the State Governments. Each level of Government is supreme in
its own sphere. The Constitution of India is written and is supreme. The provisions of the
Constitution which are concerned with federal principles cannot be altered without the consent of
the majority of the States. The Constitution establishes a Supreme Court to decide disputes
between the Union and the States, or the States inter se interpret finally the provisions of the
Constitution. But, as said earlier, some scholars hesitate to characterize the Indian Constitution as
truly federal because according to them in certain circumstances the Constitution empowers the
Centre to interfere in the State matters and thus places the States in a subordinate position which
violates the federal principle. They, therefore, use such expressions for it as ''quasi-federal', 'unitary
with federal features' or 'federal with unitary features'.
In the opinion of Prof. Wheare -The Constitution establishes a system of Government which is
almost quasi-federal a unitary State with subsidiary unitary features rather than a federal State with
subsidiary unitary features'?
Jennings has characterised it as 'a federation with a strong centralising tendency'.

Let us now examine what are those provisions of the Constitution which are produced in
support of the above argument and how they modify the strict application of the federal
principle. In the following matters, it is pointed out, the Indian Constitution contains the
modifications of the federal principle: —

(1) Appointment of Governor —The Governors of the States are appointed by the President
(Articles 155 and 156) and answerable to him. This is, however, not a matter of much significance,
for, the Governor is only the constitutional head of the State who shall normally act on the advice
of his Ministers. There are provisions in the Constitution under which the Governor is required to
send certain State laws for the assent of the President. The President has power to veto those State
laws e.g., Arts. 200, 288(2). But whatever be the letter of the Constitution, in practice there are not
many examples where the President has vetoed the State Laws. The only example has been the
Kerala Education Bill. But here also the Centre obtained the advisory opinion of the Supreme
Court before sending it back to the State Legislature for suitable amendments in the light of the
Court's opinion,
(2) Parliament's power to legislate in the national interest —Under Art. 249 Parliament is
empowered to make Jaws with respect to every matter enumerated in the Slate List if the Rajya
Sabha passes a resolution by 2/3 majority that it is necessary in the national interest. There cannot
be any objection to this provision: First, no one will deny that if a subject in the State List assumes
national character. Parliament should make a law on it. In normal course this cannot be done unless
the Constitution is amended. But in this provision we have devised an expedient way by which
without formally amending the Constitution we can achieve the desired effect, namely, the
acquisition by the Centre of the power to administer and legislate upon a subject which has
assumed national importance. Secondly, it should also be noted that this power is given to
Parliament by the Council of States itself by passing a resolution supported by 2/3 majority of the
members present. Thus, in effect by this device the Constitution is amended by the agreement of
majority of the States. We, therefore, fail to understand how Article 249 places the State in
subordinate position.
(3) Parliaments' power to form new States and alter boundaries of existing States — The
Parliament of India may form new States; it may increase or diminish the area of any State and it
may alter the boundaries or name of any State (Art. 3). The very existence of the State thus depends
upon the sweet will of the Union Government. The power r conferred on Parliament to make
territorial adjustment is better explained on the historical basis. The Government of India, for the
first time, establishes federal polity in India. It deliberately created the constituent units of the
federation although they had no organic roots in the past. The framers of the Constitution were
well aware of the peculiar conditions under which and the reasons for which the States were formed
and their boundaries were defined and so they deliberately accepted the provisions in Article 3
with a view to meeting the possibility of the redistribution of the State territory after the integration
of Indian States. The provisions in Art. 3 take into account the fact that the Constitution
contemplated readjustment of the territories of constituent States which might arise in future.
(4) Emergency provisions —The Constitution envisages three types of emergencies:
(I) emergency caused by war or external aggression or armed rebellion (Art, 352);
(2) emergency caused by failure of constitutional machinery in States (Art. 356); and
(3) financial emergency (Art. 360).
When the proclamation of emergency is made under Art. 352, the normal distribution of powers
between the Centre and the States undergo a vital change. Parliament is empowered to make laws
with respect to any matter enumerated in the State List. The Centre is empowered to give directions
to any State as to manner in which the State's executive power is to be exercised (Art. 256). Further,
the President may by order direct that all or any of the provisions of Arts. 268 to 279 relating to
distribution of revenue between the Centre and the State shall take effect with such exception or
modifications, as he thinks fit. Under Art. 356, if the President is satisfied that Government of a
State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution he can dismiss the
State ministry and dissolve the Legislature and assume all the functions of the State. Thus the
normal distribution of powers between the Centre and the States, which is the basic element of a
federal constitution,- is completely suspended. It is alleged that these provisions enable the Union
Parliament to convert the Union into a unitary State which vitally affects the federal character of
the Indian Constitution.

DO THESE PROVISIONS MODIFY THE FEDERAL CHARACTER OF THE INDIAN

CONSTITUTION?
"The correct view", observes Dr. V.N. Shukla, "is that emergency provisions which come into
operation only on the happening of the specific contingencies, do not modify or destroy the federal
system. It is rather a merit of the Constitution that it visualizes the contingencies when the strict
application of the federal principle might destroy the basic assumption on which our Constitution
is built. The Constitution by adopting itself to changed circumstances strengthens the Government
in its endeavor to overcome the crisis. In an emergency the behavior of each federal Constitution
is very much different from that in peace time. Though the Constitution of the U.S.A., Australia
and Canada do not expressly provide for enlargement of federal power during the periods of
emergency, but during the two World Wars, the defense power of the Federal Government was
given so extended an interpretation by the courts that these countries behaved more likely unitary
than federal State. For the above reasons we maintain that the Indian Constitution is federal in
nature." Prof. Wheare has coined a phrase 'quasi-federation' as applicable to India but he has
nowhere defined what a 'quasi-federation' is. "It is not necessary to use such a vague term 'quasi-
federal' to characterize it". The term 'quasi-federal' is extremely vague as it does not denote how
powerful the Centre is, how much deviation there is from the pure 'federal model' or what kind of
special position a particular quasi-federation occupies between a unitary State and a federation
proper. The fundamental principle of federation is that the powers are distributed between the
Centre and the States and that is done by the Constitution. That is what the Constitution does. The
States do not depend upon the Centre, for, in normal times the Centre cannot intrude. It may be
that the Centre has been assigned a larger role than the Sates but that by itself does not detract from
the federal nature of the Constitution, for it is not the essence of federalism to say that only so
much, and more power, is to be given to the Centre. Prof. Wheare appears to feel that the American
Constitution is truly of federal type. He says 'among examples of federal constitutions there may
be mentioned those of the United States, Switzerland and Australia'. It may, however, be clearly
understood that the nature of federalism is more of historical growth based on a nation's necessity.
To accept the same pattern of federalism in all countries is well nigh impossible. With all respects
to Prof. Wheare, we may tell him that federalism varies from place to place, and from time to time
depending on so many factors—historical, geographical, economical and political. So what is good
for America is not necessarily good for India. The people of a country can take in only the required
dosages; otherwise they may stunt or destroy their growth. Federalism is not like the set pattern of
coats to wear. It is a clock of varying organized pattern befitting each wearer and helping him to
the next and superior stages of federalism. India's federalism is unique and good for itself.
America's federalism is not perfect as it is stated to be. It has got its own drawback. Indian
Constitution is sufficiently federal. It is not less federal than American federalism which on paper
is of higher degree but in the actual practice the leaning is towards centralization of national
interest. The term quasi is a misnomer. India is federal and America is more federal in the outline
of the constitution in practice there is not much difference between the two. It may be that we
deviated in respect of certain matters from the strict federalism as operating in the U.S.A. or
Switzerland, but the reasons are obvious. The Indian Constitution makers defined the Indian
federal structure not with an eye on theoretical but on practical considerations in designing
federalism. Under the impact of world wars, international crisis, scientific and technological
progress and developments and the emergence of the ideal of social welfare State, the whole
concept of federalism had been undergoing a change for sometime throughout the world. There
are centralizing tendencies in evidence in every federation and whether it is in U.S.A. or in
Australia, strong and powerful national governments have emerged in every federation. The
framers of the Indian Constitution took note of these tendencies and kept in view the practical
needs of the country designed on federal structure not on the footing that it should conform to
some theoretical, definite or standard pattern, but on the basis that it should be able to sub serve
the need of the vast and diverse country like India. The Indian Constitution, therefore, constitutes
a new bold experiment in the area of federalism. In short, it may be concluded that the Constitution
of India is neither purely federal nor purely unitary but is a combination of both. It is a union of
composite State of a novel type. It enshrines the principle that in spite of federalism, the national
interest ought to be paramount. Thus, the Indian Constitution is mainly federal with unique
safeguards for enforcing national unity and growth.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: THE PREAMBLE

WHAT IS A PREAMBLE

A preamble is an introductory statement in a document that explains the document’s philosophy

and objectives. In other words the ‘Preamble’ of the Constitution of India is a brief introductory
statement that sets out the guiding purpose and principles of the document, and it indicates the
source from which the document which derives its authority, meaning, the people.
In a Constitution, it presents the intention of its framers, the history behind its creation, and the
core values and principles of the nation. The Preamble of Indian Constitution consists of 73 words.
These 73-words of the Preamble to the Constitution of India outlines the ideals that must guide
Indian democracy. Together with the Directive Principles of State Policy, it provides the context
in which the country can achieve the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The ideals
behind the Preamble to India’s Constitution were laid down by Jawaharlal Nehru’s Objectives
Resolution, adopted by the Constituent Assembly on January 22, 1947. Although not enforceable
in court, the Preamble states the objects of the Constitution, and acts as an aid during the
interpretation of Articles when language is found ambiguous. The preamble begins with the words
“We the people of India…” thus clearly indicating the source of all authority of the constitution.
It emphasizes the sovereignty of the people and the fact that all powers of government flow from
the people. It is the people of India on whose authority the Constitution rests. The preamble
surmises that it is the people of India who are the authors of the constitution. Thus the words “We,
the people of India” declares in unambiguous terms that the Constitution has been adopted, enacted
and given to themselves by the people of India. It was adopted on 26 November 1949 by
the Constituent Assembly of India and came into effect on 26th January 1950.
PREAMBLE OF INDIA – OBJECTIVE RESOLUTION

The ideals behind the Preamble to India’s Constitution were laid down by Jawaharlal Nehru’s
Objectives Resolution, adopted by the Constituent Assembly on January 22, 1947 describing the
constitutional structure. It shaped the Constitution of India and its modified version is reflected
in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. The basic tenets that the objective resolution
highlighted were:

• Constituent Assembly’s resolve to see India as independent, sovereign and republic

• To draw a Constitution for India
• To make all territories of the pre-independent India into united states of post-independent
India
• To realize residual powers, autonomy on such states as the Constitution of India reflects
• To realize union with the power which will be different than those given to such states
• The people of India to play the source of power and authority of the sovereignty, and the
independence
• To provide justice, social, economic and political equality of status of opportunity
and, freedom of thought,
 expression, belief, faith, worship, vocation, association and action, subject to law and
public
morality before the law
• To provide adequate safeguards to the minorities, tribal and backward areas and other
depressed and backward classes
• To maintain the integrity of the Indian republic’s territory and its territorial rights on land,
sea, air according to the justice and law of the civilized nation
• To promote peace and welfare among the worldly nations.

FOUR MAIN INGREDIENTS OF THE INDIAN PREAMBLE:

The preamble basically gives idea of the following things/objects:

➢ Source of the Constitution

➢ Nature of Indian State
➢ Statement of its objectives
➢ Date of its adoption
COMPONENTS OF PREAMBLE

▪ It is indicated by the Preamble that the source of authority of the Constitution lies with
the people of India.
▪ Preamble declares India to be a sovereign, socialist, secular and democratic republic.
▪ The objectives stated by the Preamble are to secure justice, liberty, equality to all citizens
and promote fraternity to maintain unity and integrity of the nation.
▪ The date is mentioned in the preamble when it was adopted i.e. November 26, 1949.
KEY WORDS IN THE PREAMBLE

▪ We, the people of India: It indicates the ultimate sovereignty of the people of
India. Sovereignty means the independent authority of the State, not being subject to the
control of any other State or external power.
▪ Sovereign: The term means that India has its own independent authority and it is not a
dominion of any other external power. In the country, the legislature has the power to make
laws which are subject to certain limitations.
▪ Socialist: The term means the achievement of socialist ends through democratic means. It
holds faith in a mixed economy where both private and public sectors co-exist side by side.
It was added in the Preamble by 42nd Amendment, 1976.
▪ Secular: The term means that all the religions in India get equal respect, protection and
support from the state. It was incorporated in the Preamble by 42nd Constitutional
Amendment, 1976.
▪ Democratic: The term implies that the Constitution of India has an established form of
Constitution which gets its authority from the will of the people expressed in an election.
▪ Republic: The term indicates that the head of the state is elected by the people. In India, the
President of India is the elected head of the state.
OBJECTIVES OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

The Constitution is the supreme law and it helps to maintain integrity in the society and
to promote unity among the citizens to build a great nation.
The main objective of the Indian Constitution is to promote harmony throughout the nation. The
factors which help in achieving this objective are:

Justice: It is necessary to maintain order in society that is promised through various provisions
of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy provided by the
Constitution of India. It comprises three elements, which is social, economic, and political.

• Social Justice – Social justice means that the Constitution wants to create a
society without discrimination on any grounds like caste, creed, gender, religion,
etc.
• Economic Justice – Economic Justice means no discrimination can be caused by
people on the basis of their wealth, income, and economic status. Every person
must be paid equally for an equal position and all people must get opportunities
to earn for their living.
• Political Justice – Political Justice means all the people have an equal, free and
fair right without any discrimination to participate in political opportunities.
Equality: The term ‘Equality’ means no section of society has any special privileges and all the
people have given equal opportunities for everything without any discriminations. Everyone is
equal before the law.
Liberty: The term ‘Liberty’ means freedom for the people to choose their way of life, have
political views and behavior in society. Liberty does not mean freedom to do anything, a person
can do anything but in the limit set by the law.
Fraternity: The term ‘Fraternity’ means a feeling of brotherhood and an emotional attachment
with the country and all the people. Fraternity helps to promote dignity and unity in the nation.
IMPORTANCE OF OBJECTIVES:
It provides a way of life. It includes fraternity, liberty, and equality as the notion of a happy
life and which cannot be taken from each other.
 ➢ Liberty cannot be divorced from equality, equality cannot be divorced from
liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be divorced from fraternity.
➢ Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the
many.
➢ Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative.
➢ Without fraternity, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the
many.
➢ Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural course of
things.

STATUS OF PREAMBLE:

The preamble being part of the Constitution is discussed several times in the Supreme Court. It
can be understood by reading the following two cases.

Berubari Case: It was used as a reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution
which was on the implementation of the Indo-Pakistan Agreement related to the
Berubari Union and in exchanging the enclaves which were decided for consideration
by the bench consisting of eight judges. Through the Berubari case, the Court stated
that ‘Preamble is the key to open the mind of the makers’ but it can not be considered
as part of the Constitution. Therefore it is not enforceable in a court of law.
IS THE PREAMBLE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION?
Preamble is part of the Constitution. Preamble indicates the basic structure of the Constitution.
Preamble is neither enforceable nor justifiable in a court of law. This implies that courts cannot
pass orders against the government in India to implement the ideas in the Preamble. Preamble can
be amended and it has been amended only once through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act
1976.
Kesavananda Bharati Case: In this case, for the first time, a bench of 13 judges was assembled
to hear a writ petition. The Court held that:

➢ The Preamble of the Constitution will now be considered as part of the

Constitution.
➢ The Preamble is not the supreme power or source of any restriction or
prohibition but it plays an important role in the interpretation of statutes and
provisions of the Constitution.
➢ So, it can be concluded that preamble is part of the introductory part of the
Constitution.
▪ In the 1995 case of Union Government Vs LIC of India also, the Supreme Court has once
again held that Preamble is the integral part of the Constitution but is not directly enforceable
in a court of justice in India.
AMENDMENT OF THE PREAMBLE

42nd Amendment Act, 1976: After the judgment of the Kesavanand Bharati case, it was
accepted that the preamble is part of the Constitution.
As a part of the Constitution, preamble can be amended under Article 368 of the Constitution,
but the basic structure of the preamble cannot be amended. As of now, the preamble is only
amended once through the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. The term ‘Socialist’, ‘Secular’, and
‘Integrity’ were added to the preamble through 42nd Amendment Act, 1976.‘Socialist’ and
‘Secular’ were added between ‘Sovereign’ and ‘Democratic’.‘Unity of the Nation’ was changed
to ‘Unity and Integrity of the Nation’.

PART 2 ARTICLES 5-11

CITIZENSHIP IN INDIA

Citizenship signifies the relationship between individual and state. Like any other modern state,
India has two kinds of people—citizens and aliens. Citizens are full members of the Indian State
and owe allegiance to it. They enjoy all civil and political rights. Citizenship is an idea of exclusion
as it excludes non-citizens. There are two well-known principles for the grant of citizenship: While
‘jus soli’ confers citizenship on the basis of place of birth, ‘jus sanguinis’ gives recognition to
blood ties. From the time of the Motilal Nehru Committee (1928), the Indian leadership was in
favour of the enlightened concept of jus soli. The racial idea of jus sanguinis was also rejected by
the Constituent Assembly as it was against the Indian ethos. Constitutional Provisions Citizenship
is listed in the Union List under the Constitution and thus is under the exclusive jurisdiction of
Parliament.

Citizenship is the status of a person recognized under law as being a legal member of a sovereign
state or belonging to a nation. In India, Articles 5 – 11 of the Constitution deals with the concept
of citizenship. The term citizenship entails the enjoyment of full membership of any State in which
a citizen has civil and political rights.This is a very important concept to be understood and read
for the IAS exam polity and governance segments. With the recent Citizenship Amendment Bill
in the news, the topic of citizenship assumes all the more importance.The Constitution does not
define the term ‘citizen’ but details of various categories of persons who are entitled to citizenship
are given in Part 2 (Articles 5 to 11). Unlike other provisions of the Constitution, which came into
being on January 26, 1950, these articles were enforced on November 26, 1949 itself, when the
Constitution was adopted.
First, we discuss all the articles in the Indian Constitution pertaining to citizenship.

Article 5: Citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution

It provided for citizenship on commencement of the Constitution. All those domiciled and born in
India were given citizenship. Even those who were domiciled but not born in India, but either of
whose parents were born in India, were considered citizens. Anyone who had been an ordinary
resident for more than five years, too, was entitled to apply for citizenship. This article talks about
citizenship for people at the commencement of the Constitution, i.e. 26th January 1950. Under
this, citizenship is conferred upon those persons who have their domicile in Indian territory
and –
 1. Who was born in Indian territory; or
2. Whose either parent was born in Indian territory; or
3. Who has ordinarily been a resident of India for not less than 5 years immediately preceding
the commencement of the Constitution.

Article 6: Citizenship of certain persons who have migrated from Pakistan

It provided rights of citizenship of certain persons who have migrated to India from Pakistan. Since
Independence was preceded by Partition and migration, Article 6 laid down that anyone who
migrated to India before July 19, 1949, would automatically become an Indian citizen if either of
his parents or grandparents was born in India. But those who entered India after this date needed
to register themselves. Any person who has migrated from Pakistan shall be a citizen of India at
the time of the commencement of the Constitution if –

1.
1. He or either of his parents or any of his grandparents was born in India as given in
the Government of India Act of 1935; and
2. (a) in case such a person has migrated before July 19th, 1948 and has been
ordinarily resident in India since his migration, or
(b) in case such as a person has migrated after July 19th, 1948 and he has been registered as a
citizen of India by an officer appointed in that behalf by the government of the Dominion of India
on an application made by him thereof to such an officer before the commencement of the
Constitution, provided that no person shall be so registered unless he has been resident in India for
at least 6 months immediately preceding the date of his application.

Article 7: Provided Rights of citizenship of certain migrants to Pakistan.

Those who had migrated to Pakistan after March 1, 1947 but subsequently returned on resettlement
permits were included within the citizenship net. The law was more sympathetic to those who
migrated from Pakistan and called them refugees than to those who, in a state of confusion, were
stranded in Pakistan or went there but decided to return soon.
Article 8: Provided Rights of citizenship of certain persons of Indian origin residing outside
India.
Any Person of Indian Origin residing outside India who, or either of whose parents or
grandparents, was born in India could register himself or herself as an Indian citizen with Indian
Diplomatic Mission.
Article 9: Provided that if any person voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State will
no longer be a citizen of India.
Article10: It says that 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.

Article 11: Parliament to regulate the right of citizenship by law

It empowers Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and
termination of citizenship and all matters relating to it. The Parliament has the right to make
any provision concerning the acquisition and termination of citizenship and any other matter
relating to citizenship.

CITIZENSHIP OF INDIA CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

• Citizenship in India is governed by Articles 5 – 11 (Part II) of the Constitution.

• The Citizenship Act, 1955 is the legislation dealing with citizenship. This has been
amended by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 1986, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act
1992, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2003, and the Citizenship (Amendment) Act,
2005.
• Nationality in India mostly follows the jus sanguinis (citizenship by right of blood) and not
jus soli (citizenship by right of birth within the territory).

ACTS AND AMENDMENTS

The Citizenship Act, 1955 provides for the acquisition and determination of Indian citizenship.
Acquisition and Determination of Indian Citizenship
There are four ways in which Indian citizenship can be acquired: birth, descent, registration and
naturalisation. The provisions are listed under the Citizenship Act, 1955.

By Birth: Every person born in India on or after 26.01.1950 but before 01.07.1987 is an Indian
citizen irrespective of the nationality of his/her parents. Every person born in India between
01.07.1987 and 02.12.2004 is a citizen of India given either of his/her parents is a citizen of the
country at the time of his/her birth. Every person born in India on or after 3.12.2004 is a citizen of
the country given both his/her parents are Indians or at least one parent is a citizen and the other is
not an illegal migrant at the time of birth.

By Registration: Citizenship can also be acquired by registration. Some of the mandatory rules
are: A person of Indian origin who has been a resident of India for 7 years before applying for
registration. A person of Indian origin who is a resident of any country outside undivided India. A
person who is married to an Indian citizen and is ordinarily resident for 7 years before applying
for registration. Minor children of persons who are citizens of India.

By Descent: A person born outside India on or after January 26, 1950 is a citizen of India by
descent if his/her father was a citizen of India by birth. A person born outside India on or after
December 10, 1992, but before December 3, 2004 if either of his/her parent was a citizen of India
by birth. If a person born outside India or after December 3, 2004 has to acquire citizenship, his/her
parents have to declare that the minor does not hold a passport of another country and his/her birth
is registered at an Indian consulate within one year of birth.

By Naturalization: A person can acquire citizenship by naturalisation if he/she is ordinarily

resident of India for 12 years (throughout 12 months preceding the date of application and 11 years
in the aggregate) and fulfils all qualifications in the third schedule of the Citizenship Act. The Act
does not provide for dual citizenship or dual nationality. It only allows citizenship for a person
listed under the provisions above i.e.: by birth, descent, registration or naturalisation. The act has
been amended four times — in 1986, 2003, 2005, and 2015. Through these amendments
Parliament has narrowed down the wider and universal principles of citizenship based on the fact
of birth. Moreover, the Foreigners Act places a heavy burden on the individual to prove that he/she
is not a foreigner.

CITIZENSHIP OF INDIA CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

CITIZENSHIP ACT, 1955

The Citizenship Act, 1955 is the legislation dealing with citizenship. This has been amended by
the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 1986, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 1992, the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act 2003, and the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2005. Nationality in India mostly
follows the jus sanguinis (citizenship by right of blood) and not jus soli (citizenship by right of
birth within the territory).
Citizenship of India can be acquired in the following ways:

1. Citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution

2. Citizenship by birth
3. Citizenship by descent
4. Citizenship by registration
5. Citizenship by naturalization
6. By incorporation of territory (by the Government of India)

➢ People who were domiciled in India as on 26th November 1949 automatically became
citizens of India by virtue of citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution.
➢ Persons who were born in India on or after 26th January 1950 but before 1st July 1987 are
Indian citizens.
➢ A person born after 1st July 1987 is an Indian citizen if either of the parents was a citizen
of India at the time of birth.
➢ Persons born after 3rd December 2004 are Indian citizens if both parents are Indian citizens
or if one parent is an Indian citizen and the other is not an illegal migrant at the time of
birth.
➢ Citizenship by birth is not applicable for children of foreign diplomatic personnel and those
of enemy aliens.
Termination of Indian Citizenship
Termination of citizenship is possible in three ways according to the Act:

1. Renunciation: If any citizen of India who is also a national of another country renounces
his Indian citizenship through a declaration in the prescribed manner, he ceases to be an
Indian citizen. When a male person ceases to be a citizen of India, every minor child of his
also ceases to be a citizen of India. However, such a child may within one year after
attaining full age become an Indian citizen by making a declaration of his intention to
resume Indian citizenship.
2. Termination: Indian citizenship can be terminated if a citizen knowingly or voluntarily
adopts the citizenship of any foreign country.
3. Deprivation: The government of India can deprive a person of his citizenship in some
cases. But this is not applicable for all citizens. It is applicable only in the case of citizens
who have acquired the citizenship by registration, naturalization, or only by Article 5
Clause (c) (which is citizenship at commencement for a domicile in India and who has
ordinarily been a resident of India for not less than 5 years immediately preceding the
commencement of the Constitution).