Changes to India’s Citizenship Laws
link to page 1 
Updated December 1, 2022
Changes to India’s Citizenship Laws
In December 2019, India’s Parliament passed, and its
2019 and throughout the economic slowdown associated
President signed into law, the Citizenship Amendment Act
with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic,
(CAA), 2019, altering the country’s 1955 Citizenship Act.
the Modi-BJP government has responded to slowed growth
For the first time in independent India’s history, a religious
by becoming more reliant on emotive, religious-based
criterion was added to the country’s naturalization process.
issues to consolidate political support.
The changes sparked significant controversy, including
large-scale and sometimes violent protests. Opponents of
The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019
the CAA warn that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his
India’s Citizenship Act of 1955 prohibited illegal
Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) are pursuing
immigrants from becoming citizens. Among numerous
a Hindu majoritarian, anti-Muslim agenda that threatens
amendments to the act since 1955, none contained a
India’s status as an officially secular republic and violates
religious aspect. In 2015 and 2016, the Modi-BJP
international human rights norms and obligations. In
government issued notifications that Hindus, Sikhs, Jains,
tandem with a National Register of Citizens (NRC) planned
Buddhists, Parsis (Zoroastrians), and Christians—but not
by the federal government, the as-yet unimplemented CAA
Muslims—who came to India from Pakistan, Bangladesh,
may threaten the citizenship rights of India’s large Muslim
or Afghanistan before 2015 would be exempted from laws
minority of roughly 200 million. India’s Supreme Court is
prohibiting citizenship for illegal immigrants. A Citizenship
set to resume its review more than 250 petitions on the
Amendment Bill, meant to formalize these exemptions, was
law’s constitutionality in December 2022.
introduced in 2016, and was first voted upon in early 2019,
when it was passed by the Lok Sabha. The bill was not
Context: India’s Hindu Nationalist Government
taken up by the Rajya Sabha (Parliament’s upper chamber)
India’s population of nearly 1.4 billion includes a Hindu
following resistance from opposition parties and street
majority of about 80%, as well as a large Muslim minority
protests in India’s northeastern states.
of above 14% (see Figure 1). Prime Minister Modi, a self-
avowed Hindu nationalist, took office in 2014 after his BJP
In December 2019, seven months after a sweeping
won the first outright majority in 30 years in the Lok Sabha
reelection that expanded the BJP’s Lok Sabha majority and
(the lower chamber of India’s bicameral legislature). That
improved its standing in the Rajya Sabha, the bill was
majority was expanded in May 2019 elections, providing an
passed by both chambers. Its key provisions—allowing
apparent mandate for pursuing Hindu nationalist policy
immigrants of six religions from three countries a path to
goals. Among these were abrogation of Article 370 of the
citizenship while excluding Muslims—may violate certain
Constitution, which provided special status to Jammu and
Articles of the Indian Constitution (see text box). The CAA
Kashmir, previously India’s only Muslim-majority state
was immediately challenged in the Supreme Court by
(announced in August 2019 and accomplished in October),
scores of petitioners.
and construction of a Hindu temple at the Ayodhya site of a
historic mosque destroyed in 1992 (enabled by a long-
Selected Articles of the Indian Constitution
awaited September 2019 Supreme Court ruling).
14. The State shall not deny to any person equality before the
law or the equal protection of the laws within the
Figure 1. Religious Demographics in India, 2011
territory of India.
15. The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on
grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth,
or any of them.
India’s federal government, which calls the CAA “a benign
piece of legislation,” argues that the three specified
countries have a state religion (Islam), resulting in the
persecution of religious minorities. Proponents say that
Muslims do not face persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh,
or Afghanistan, and that the CAA is constitutional because
Source: Census of India, 2011.
it addresses migrants rather than Indian citizens. Yet it is
Hindu nationalists tend to view India’s history as a series of
not clear why migrants from other neighboring countries
humiliations at the hands of foreign invaders—Mughal
with state (or favored) religions, such as Sri Lanka (where
Muslims and later British colonialists. As a consequence,
Buddhism is the official religion and Tamil Hindus face
they have rejected the secularism propounded by founders
persecution) and Burma (where Buddhism enjoys primacy
of the modern Indian state such as Jawaharlal Nehru and
and Rohingya Muslims are persecuted), are excluded from
Mohandas Gandhi. Some analysts have contended that in
a path to citizenship. In addition, oppressed Muslim
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Changes to India’s Citizenship Laws
minority communities such as Pakistan’s Shias and
numbers of Bengali immigrants will alter the region’s
Ahmadis enjoy no protections under the CAA.
culture and demographics, and threaten access to education,
jobs, and government subsidies. The government sought to
International Responses
address these concerns by exempting certain tribal areas of
The lead U.S. diplomat for the region in 2019 expressed
six northeastern states from the CAA’s provisions.)
“genuine concern” about “India’s trajectory” and that social
issues such as the CAA “not detract from India’s ability ...
Large-scale and sometimes violent protests also raged in
to stand with us in trying to promote, again, this free and
West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh, as well as in Delhi. Mass
open Indo-Pacific.” In June 2022, the Biden
demonstrations took place at numerous, mostly Muslim-
Administration’s Ambassador-at-Large for International
majority universities. Indian leaders were unmoved by the
Religious Freedom raised concerns about the CAA among
dissent. At a December 2019 rally, Prime Minister Modi
signs of increasing and often official repression of India’s
said that the opposition’s protests confirmed for him that
religious minorities. In the 117th Congress, some Members
passage of the CAA was “1,000 percent correct.” Two days
also have taken note, including in H.Res. 1196 (introduced
later, Home Minister Shah said there was no chance that the
June 2022), “condemning human rights violations and
CAA would be withdrawn, despite opposition protests. By
violations of international religious freedom in India.”
February 2020, unrest had spread to 14 states across India,
with at least 80 people reportedly killed in related violence
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
and 1,500 arrested before protests subsided by March of
(USCIRF) expressed being “deeply troubled” by the CAA’s
that year. Human rights groups decried reports that police
establishment of “a legal criterion for citizenship based on
used excessive force against demonstrators, and said
religion,” and it urged the U.S. government to consider
internet shutdowns were disproportionate and unnecessary.
sanctions against Home Minister Amit Shah “and other
principal leadership.” (India’s External Affairs Ministry
The National Register of Citizens
rejected USCIRF’s criticism as “neither accurate nor
India’s National Register of Citizens (NRC), established in
warranted.”) Neighboring Pakistan’s government
1951, has not been updated despite a 2013 Supreme Court
condemned the CAA as “discriminatory legislation,” and
order compelling the federal and Assam governments to
the Organization of Islamic Cooperation expressed
begin an update process. In 2018, the BJP-led Assam
concerns about the law. The U.N. Office of the High
government published an NRC draft that was criticized for
Commissioner for Human Rights called the CAA
seeking to oust the ethnic Bengali immigrant population
“fundamentally discriminatory in nature,” saying it appears
from Assam. Facing an August 2019 deadline, all of
to undermine India’s constitutional commitment to equality
Assam’s roughly 33 million residents had to prove through
before the law. U.S.-based Human Rights Watch has argued
documentation that they or their ancestors were Indian
that the “inherently discriminatory” CAA violates India’s
citizens before March 25, 1971, when Bangladesh gained
international legal obligations, as well as Articles 14 and 15
independence from Pakistan and large numbers of Bengalis
of the Indian Constitution. It said New Delhi’s claim that
illegally crossed into India. The final citizenship list
the law seeks to protect religious minorities fleeing
omitted nearly two million residents, more than 5% of the
persecution in neighboring countries “rings hollow” given
state’s population. Nearly all of those omitted reportedly
the exclusion of Muslim Shia, Ahmadis, and Rohingya
are ethnic Bengalis, and almost half are Muslims. These
from neighboring countries.
persons have been required to appeal to quasi-judicial
“Foreigner Tribunals” and risk being stripped of their
Domestic Indian Opposition and Street Protests
citizenship. To date, none have been deported.
Opposition to the act appeared quickly across India,
including through public letters signed by more than 1,400
Many independent human rights organizations have
writers, scholars, and scientists. Numerous political figures
expressed concerns about the NRC. A group of U.N.
and parties denounced the act; Sonia Gandhi, president of
experts warned that the NRC process “may exacerbate the
the opposition Congress Party, accused the Modi
xenophobic climate [in India] while fueling religious
government of creating an atmosphere of religious tension
intolerance and discrimination in the country.” The New
to forward its political interests. The chief ministers of
Delhi government, which has yet to implement the law
Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, and
nationally, maintains that the NRC update is a fair and non-
West Bengal said they would not implement the CAA,
discriminatory process driven by the Supreme Court that
calling it “unconstitutional.” A Home Affairs Ministry
does not impose a religious test or render any persons
spokesman countered that state governments have no
“stateless.” Home Minister Shah repeatedly has stated that a
powers to refuse implementation.
nationwide NRC law will follow implementation of the
CAA. Observers see the CAA and NRC as closely linked,
Violent protests broke out in the northeastern states of
with the former said to help protect non-Muslims excluded
Assam and Tripura a day after the bill’s enactment, spurring
from the latter. Critics contend that the CAA is designed to
the federal government to deploy thousands of troops,
protect only members of “approved” religions while others
impose a curfew, and cut off communications in much of
will have little recourse, thus forwarding alleged Modi-BJP
Assam. (Opposition in Assam is driven in large part by a
efforts to undermine India’s secular ethos and establish
perception that the CAA will nullify provisions of the
what one senior observer calls “an ethnic democracy that
Assam Accord of 1985, which set March 1971 as the cut-
equates the majoritarian community with the nation and
off date for “legal” migration. Indigenous groups in several
relegates Muslims and Christians to second-class citizens
states abutting Bangladesh fear that naturalizing large
who are harassed by vigilante groups.”
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Changes to India’s Citizenship Laws
IF11395
K. Alan Kronstadt, Specialist in South Asian Affairs
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11395 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED
Updated December 1, 2022
Changes to India’s Citizenship Laws
In December 2019, India’s Parliament passed, and its
2019 and throughout the economic slowdown associated
President signed into law, the Citizenship Amendment Act
with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic,
(CAA), 2019, altering the country’s 1955 Citizenship Act.
the Modi-BJP government has responded to slowed growth
For the first time in independent India’s history, a religious
by becoming more reliant on emotive, religious-based
criterion was added to the country’s naturalization process.
issues to consolidate political support.
The changes sparked significant controversy, including
large-scale and sometimes violent protests. Opponents of
The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019
the CAA warn that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his
India’s Citizenship Act of 1955 prohibited illegal
Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) are pursuing
immigrants from becoming citizens. Among numerous
a Hindu majoritarian, anti-Muslim agenda that threatens
amendments to the act since 1955, none contained a
India’s status as an officially secular republic and violates
religious aspect. In 2015 and 2016, the Modi-BJP
international human rights norms and obligations. In
government issued notifications that Hindus, Sikhs, Jains,
tandem with a National Register of Citizens (NRC) planned
Buddhists, Parsis (Zoroastrians), and Christians—but not
by the federal government, the as-yet unimplemented CAA
Muslims—who came to India from Pakistan, Bangladesh,
may threaten the citizenship rights of India’s large Muslim
or Afghanistan before 2015 would be exempted from laws
minority of roughly 200 million. India’s Supreme Court is
prohibiting citizenship for illegal immigrants. A Citizenship
set to resume its review more than 250 petitions on the
Amendment Bill, meant to formalize these exemptions, was
law’s constitutionality in December 2022.
introduced in 2016, and was first voted upon in early 2019,
when it was passed by the Lok Sabha. The bill was not
Context: India’s Hindu Nationalist Government
taken up by the Rajya Sabha (Parliament’s upper chamber)
India’s population of nearly 1.4 billion includes a Hindu
following resistance from opposition parties and street
majority of about 80%, as well as a large Muslim minority
protests in India’s northeastern states.
of above 14% (see Figure 1). Prime Minister Modi, a self-
avowed Hindu nationalist, took office in 2014 after his BJP
In December 2019, seven months after a sweeping
won the first outright majority in 30 years in the Lok Sabha
reelection that expanded the BJP’s Lok Sabha majority and
(the lower chamber of India’s bicameral legislature). That
improved its standing in the Rajya Sabha, the bill was
majority was expanded in May 2019 elections, providing an
passed by both chambers. Its key provisions—allowing
apparent mandate for pursuing Hindu nationalist policy
immigrants of six religions from three countries a path to
goals. Among these were abrogation of Article 370 of the
citizenship while excluding Muslims—may violate certain
Constitution, which provided special status to Jammu and
Articles of the Indian Constitution (see text box). The CAA
Kashmir, previously India’s only Muslim-majority state
was immediately challenged in the Supreme Court by
(announced in August 2019 and accomplished in October),
scores of petitioners.
and construction of a Hindu temple at the Ayodhya site of a
historic mosque destroyed in 1992 (enabled by a long-
Selected Articles of the Indian Constitution
awaited September 2019 Supreme Court ruling).
14. The State shall not deny to any person equality before the
law or the equal protection of the laws within the
Figure 1. Religious Demographics in India, 2011
territory of India.
15. The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on
grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth,
or any of them.
India’s federal government, which calls the CAA “a benign
piece of legislation,” argues that the three specified
countries have a state religion (Islam), resulting in the
persecution of religious minorities. Proponents say that
Muslims do not face persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh,
or Afghanistan, and that the CAA is constitutional because
Source: Census of India, 2011.
it addresses migrants rather than Indian citizens. Yet it is
Hindu nationalists tend to view India’s history as a series of
not clear why migrants from other neighboring countries
humiliations at the hands of foreign invaders—Mughal
with state (or favored) religions, such as Sri Lanka (where
Muslims and later British colonialists. As a consequence,
Buddhism is the official religion and Tamil Hindus face
they have rejected the secularism propounded by founders
persecution) and Burma (where Buddhism enjoys primacy
of the modern Indian state such as Jawaharlal Nehru and
and Rohingya Muslims are persecuted), are excluded from
Mohandas Gandhi. Some analysts have contended that in
a path to citizenship. In addition, oppressed Muslim
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Changes to India’s Citizenship Laws
minority communities such as Pakistan’s Shias and
numbers of Bengali immigrants will alter the region’s
Ahmadis enjoy no protections under the CAA.
culture and demographics, and threaten access to education,
jobs, and government subsidies. The government sought to
International Responses
address these concerns by exempting certain tribal areas of
The lead U.S. diplomat for the region in 2019 expressed
six northeastern states from the CAA’s provisions.)
“genuine concern” about “India’s trajectory” and that social
issues such as the CAA “not detract from India’s ability ...
Large-scale and sometimes violent protests also raged in
to stand with us in trying to promote, again, this free and
West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh, as well as in Delhi. Mass
open Indo-Pacific.” In June 2022, the Biden
demonstrations took place at numerous, mostly Muslim-
Administration’s Ambassador-at-Large for International
majority universities. Indian leaders were unmoved by the
Religious Freedom raised concerns about the CAA among
dissent. At a December 2019 rally, Prime Minister Modi
signs of increasing and often official repression of India’s
said that the opposition’s protests confirmed for him that
religious minorities. In the 117th Congress, some Members
passage of the CAA was “1,000 percent correct.” Two days
also have taken note, including in H.Res. 1196 (introduced
later, Home Minister Shah said there was no chance that the
June 2022), “condemning human rights violations and
CAA would be withdrawn, despite opposition protests. By
violations of international religious freedom in India.”
February 2020, unrest had spread to 14 states across India,
with at least 80 people reportedly killed in related violence
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
and 1,500 arrested before protests subsided by March of
(USCIRF) expressed being “deeply troubled” by the CAA’s
that year. Human rights groups decried reports that police
establishment of “a legal criterion for citizenship based on
used excessive force against demonstrators, and said
religion,” and it urged the U.S. government to consider
internet shutdowns were disproportionate and unnecessary.
sanctions against Home Minister Amit Shah “and other
principal leadership.” (India’s External Affairs Ministry
The National Register of Citizens
rejected USCIRF’s criticism as “neither accurate nor
India’s National Register of Citizens (NRC), established in
warranted.”) Neighboring Pakistan’s government
1951, has not been updated despite a 2013 Supreme Court
condemned the CAA as “discriminatory legislation,” and
order compelling the federal and Assam governments to
the Organization of Islamic Cooperation expressed
begin an update process. In 2018, the BJP-led Assam
concerns about the law. The U.N. Office of the High
government published an NRC draft that was criticized for
Commissioner for Human Rights called the CAA
seeking to oust the ethnic Bengali immigrant population
“fundamentally discriminatory in nature,” saying it appears
from Assam. Facing an August 2019 deadline, all of
to undermine India’s constitutional commitment to equality
Assam’s roughly 33 million residents had to prove through
before the law. U.S.-based Human Rights Watch has argued
documentation that they or their ancestors were Indian
that the “inherently discriminatory” CAA violates India’s
citizens before March 25, 1971, when Bangladesh gained
international legal obligations, as well as Articles 14 and 15
independence from Pakistan and large numbers of Bengalis
of the Indian Constitution. It said New Delhi’s claim that
illegally crossed into India. The final citizenship list
the law seeks to protect religious minorities fleeing
omitted nearly two million residents, more than 5% of the
persecution in neighboring countries “rings hollow” given
state’s population. Nearly all of those omitted reportedly
the exclusion of Muslim Shia, Ahmadis, and Rohingya
are ethnic Bengalis, and almost half are Muslims. These
from neighboring countries.
persons have been required to appeal to quasi-judicial
“Foreigner Tribunals” and risk being stripped of their
Domestic Indian Opposition and Street Protests
citizenship. To date, none have been deported.
Opposition to the act appeared quickly across India,
including through public letters signed by more than 1,400
Many independent human rights organizations have
writers, scholars, and scientists. Numerous political figures
expressed concerns about the NRC. A group of U.N.
and parties denounced the act; Sonia Gandhi, president of
experts warned that the NRC process “may exacerbate the
the opposition Congress Party, accused the Modi
xenophobic climate [in India] while fueling religious
government of creating an atmosphere of religious tension
intolerance and discrimination in the country.” The New
to forward its political interests. The chief ministers of
Delhi government, which has yet to implement the law
Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, and
nationally, maintains that the NRC update is a fair and non-
West Bengal said they would not implement the CAA,
discriminatory process driven by the Supreme Court that
calling it “unconstitutional.” A Home Affairs Ministry
does not impose a religious test or render any persons
spokesman countered that state governments have no
“stateless.” Home Minister Shah repeatedly has stated that a
powers to refuse implementation.
nationwide NRC law will follow implementation of the
CAA. Observers see the CAA and NRC as closely linked,
Violent protests broke out in the northeastern states of
with the former said to help protect non-Muslims excluded
Assam and Tripura a day after the bill’s enactment, spurring
from the latter. Critics contend that the CAA is designed to
the federal government to deploy thousands of troops,
protect only members of “approved” religions while others
impose a curfew, and cut off communications in much of
will have little recourse, thus forwarding alleged Modi-BJP
Assam. (Opposition in Assam is driven in large part by a
efforts to undermine India’s secular ethos and establish
perception that the CAA will nullify provisions of the
what one senior observer calls “an ethnic democracy that
Assam Accord of 1985, which set March 1971 as the cut-
equates the majoritarian community with the nation and
off date for “legal” migration. Indigenous groups in several
relegates Muslims and Christians to second-class citizens
states abutting Bangladesh fear that naturalizing large
who are harassed by vigilante groups.”
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Changes to India’s Citizenship Laws
IF11395
K. Alan Kronstadt, Specialist in South Asian Affairs
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11395 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED