INTRODUCTION
Citizenship is a fundamental part of any democratic nation. In India, the issues of who belongs and who doesn’t have come to the forefront with two controversial legal measures: the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019. Citizenship usually gives individuals a legal identity, political rights, and a sense of belonging, but these recent laws have ignited nationwide discussions about exclusion, religious identity, and constitutional values. This blog examines the legal implications and future of the NRC and CAA in India, particularly in light of growing polarisation and judicial scrutiny.
UNDERSTANDING THE NRC AND CAA IN INDIA
The NRC is a list kept by the Government of India that includes the names of Indian citizens. It started in Assam as part of the Assam Accord, aiming to identify illegal immigrants, particularly from Bangladesh. The final NRC list published in 2019 left out nearly 1.9 million people, raising serious concerns about statelessness, legal uncertainty, and the burden of proving citizenship.
The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, changed the Citizenship Act, 1955, to offer a path to Indian citizenship for persecuted minorities[1]—Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians—from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh who entered India before December 31, 2014[2]. The contentious part of the CAA is its explicit exclusion of Muslims, which raises serious questions about its alignment with the provision of the Constitution, guaranteeing equality before the law[3].
LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES
The CAA has faced challenges in the Supreme Court through more than 200 petitions. The main argument is that the Act undermines the secular nature of the Constitution and the right to equality under Article 14. Critics say the law discriminates based on religion and goes against the principle of non-arbitrariness[4]. Moreover, the possibility of linking the CAA with a nationwide NRC has caused fears of widespread disenfranchisement, particularly among India’s Muslim community.
The basic structure doctrine, established in this discussion[5]. Any law or constitutional change that disrupts the basic structure, which includes secularism and equality, can be annulled. Legal experts argue that the CAA does not meet this requirement.
SOCIAL AND POLITICAL IMPACT
When CAA was announced and passed, it led to widespread protests across the country. The protest, commonly called The Shaheen Bagh Protest[6], which was mainly led by women, became a symbol of peaceful resistance. Students, civil society groups, and political parties spoke out against what they saw as a discriminatory and unconstitutional law. Several states, including Kerala,
Punjab and West Bengal passed resolutions opposing the implementation of the CAA and NRC, demonstrating a unique resistance at the state level.
The fear among minorities, especially Muslims, increased with the prospect of being excluded from the NRC and not benefiting from the CAA. The situation in Assam, where individuals were sent to detention centres, heightened public anxiety. Although these laws appear administrative, they have significant social and psychological effects.
CURRENT STATUS (AS OF 2025)
As of the current status, that is, in the year 2025, the rules for the CAA were notified in March 2024. This allowed eligible applicants to start the process to gain Indian citizenship. However, the nationwide NRC has not been put into effect, likely due to public pushback and the challenges of implementing such a process in a diverse and populous country like India.
The Supreme Court has yet to issue its final ruling on the constitutional validity of the CAA, but preliminary observations raised concerns about its discriminatory nature. The central government’s lack of clarity on how the NRC and CAA would connect has added to the confusion.
INTERNATIONAL REACTIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVES
International human rights organisations, including the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC)[7] and Amnesty International, have voiced concerns about the CAA and NRC. Critics argue that the CAA goes against the spirit of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which India has not ratified but generally follows. The global community has been closely monitoring the situation, and India’s democratic reputation has suffered in some international rankings concerning civil liberties.
India asserts that the CAA is a humanitarian measure aimed at protecting persecuted minorities and that it is a sovereign right to define its citizenship laws.
MEDIA AND PUBLIC DISCOURSE
Media coverage and public discussions have significantly influenced how people view the NRC and CAA. Some media outlets supported the government’s position and presented the CAA as a humanitarian effort, while others emphasised the law’s potential for exclusion and discrimination. Social media became a battleground for both mobilisation and misinformation. Campaigns like “No CAA NRC” and “India Against CAA” gained traction, fueling political debates and raising legal awareness among the public. Intellectuals, celebrities, and students contributed their voices, stressing the need for constitutional protections and inclusive citizenship.
THE WAY FORWARD: FUTURE OF CITIZENSHIP LAW IN INDIA
The future of the NRC and CAA in India depends on several factors: judicial review, political engagement, and public resistance. Citizenship laws must remain inclusive, secular, and aligned with the Constitution[8]. A nationwide NRC without proper legal protections and court remedies could lead to large-scale exclusion and social unrest.
The Indian government should consider drafting a refugee law to fully address the needs of asylum seekers and undocumented migrants instead of relying on temporary and exclusionary measures. Additionally, a strong legal framework that respects basic rights[9] and ensures equality is urgently needed.
CONCLUSION
At the heart of the NRC-CAA debate is the question of who qualifies as an Indian citizen and on what grounds. As India faces a critical legal and moral juncture, the challenge is to uphold the Constitution’s promises of equality, dignity, and secularism. The future of citizenship in India should be defined by principles of justice and fairness, not exclusion.
Whether the judiciary meets the challenge or not, the voices of the people—in courts, on the streets, and in academic spaces—will continue to shape the conversation about borders, belonging, and the law in India. In re-imagining citizenship, India must choose inclusion instead of exclusion. The country should ensure that its laws reflect the constitutional values of justice, equality, and humanity for everyone.
Author(s) Name: Gauri Dixit (Atal Bihari Vajpayee School of Legal Studies, CSJMU, Kanpur)
References:
[1] The Citizenship Act 1955, s 6B
[2] TOI News Desk,’CAA rules decoded: full details about criteria,clauses and procedure for citizenship’ Times Of India (New Delhi 12 March,2024) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/caa-rules-decoded-full-details-about-criteria-clauses-and-procedures-for-citizenship/articleshow/108397559.cms> accessed 17 June 2025
[3] The Constitution of India 1950, art 14
[4] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
[5] Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.(1973) 4 SCC 225
[6] Ziya Us Salam,’ The CAA protests and the birth Shaheen Bagh Movement’ The Hindu(20 March,2024)<https://www.thehindu.com/books/the-caa-protests-and-the-birth-of-the-shaheen-bagh-movement/article67968206.ece> accessed 17 June,2025
[7] Fayisa CA, ‘CAA is fundamentally discriminatory, says UN’ Indian Express (13 March, 2024)<https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2024/Mar/13/caa-is-fundamentally-discriminatory-says-un> accessed 17 June,2025
[8] S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994) SC 1918
[9] Constitution of India 1950 art 14
