4. Citizenship
This is the 4th post in Constitutional Law-I, Unit 2 — Post 3 covered how India's internal map can be redrawn under Articles 1 to 4; this post covers Articles 5 to 11, which decide who actually counts as a citizen of that territory, particularly against the backdrop of Partition.
The Problem This Topic Solves
The Constitution came into force at a uniquely difficult moment: Partition in 1947 had already displaced millions of people across the new India-Pakistan border, and many others living outside India had close family and property ties within it. Before the Constitution could function at all, it had to answer a basic but urgent question — on 26 January 1950, who exactly became a citizen of India? Articles 5 to 11 answer this only for that founding moment; Parliament was then left free to make ongoing rules for citizenship afterward, which is why this topic connects a fixed constitutional starting point to a continuing statutory framework.
Citizenship vs. Nationality — and Why India Has Only One Citizenship
"Nationality" is generally the broader, international-law concept describing a person's link to a State, while "citizenship" is the narrower, domestic-law status that carries specific rights within that State — such as the right to vote, hold public office, and enjoy certain Fundamental Rights (like those under Article 19) that are reserved for citizens alone. As noted among the unitary features in Post 1, India deliberately adopted a single, uniform citizenship for the whole country, unlike some federations that recognize separate State-level citizenship alongside national citizenship — an Indian citizen is a citizen of India as a whole, not of the particular State they live in.
Article 5 — Citizenship by Domicile at the Commencement of the Constitution
Article 5 lays down the general rule for who became a citizen on 26 January 1950: every person who had their domicile in the territory of India and who additionally satisfied one of three conditions — (a) was born in India, or (b) either of whose parents was born in India, or (c) had been ordinarily resident in India for not less than five years immediately before the commencement of the Constitution — became a citizen of India. "Domicile" here means more than mere physical presence; it requires both residence and the settled intention to remain permanently.
Article 6 — Migrants from Pakistan, Before and After 19 July 1948
Article 6 deals specifically with persons who migrated to India from territory that is now Pakistan. Such a person is deemed a citizen of India if they, or either of their parents or grandparents, were born in India as defined under the Government of India Act, 1935, and, additionally:
1. Migration before 19 July 1948 — the person must have been ordinarily resident in India since the date of migration, with no further formality required.
2. Migration on or after 19 July 1948 — the person must have been registered as a citizen of India by an officer appointed for that purpose, on an application made in the prescribed form before the Constitution commenced, and only after being a resident of India for at least six months immediately preceding that application.
19 July 1948 was chosen because it was the date the Government of India first introduced permit requirements for entry from Pakistan — migration before that date was treated as effectively unregulated and informal, while migration after it was treated as a more deliberate, documented choice, which is why the law expects a registration step for the later group.
Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Ram Narain (1955) — Nationality Is Judged at the Time of the Act
Ram Narain, then resident in territory that became West Pakistan, allegedly sold goods pledged to an Indian bank while still in Pakistan, and only migrated to India afterward. The Supreme Court held that criminal liability and jurisdiction are determined by a person's status at the time the act was committed, not by citizenship or domicile acquired later — since Ram Narain was not an Indian national or domiciled in India when the alleged offence occurred, the relevant law could not be applied to him retroactively merely because he later became a citizen of India. The case is a reminder that Articles 5–8's citizenship determinations operate as of the Constitution's commencement or the date of migration, not retroactively into events that preceded them.
Article 7 — Migrants to Pakistan Who Later Returned to India
Article 7 addresses the opposite movement: persons who had migrated from India to Pakistan after 1 March 1947, but later returned to India under a permit for resettlement or permanent return. Ordinarily, such persons would not qualify under Article 6 at all, since they had left India rather than migrated to it — but Article 7 provides that, for the purpose of Article 6, such a person is treated as having migrated to India only after 19 July 1948, meaning they must go through the registration process described above, even if their actual return happened earlier.
Article 8 — Persons of Indian Origin Residing Outside India
Article 8 covers a different category altogether: persons of Indian origin who were ordinarily residing in a country outside India (such as those settled in East Africa, Sri Lanka, or Burma), where either they or either of their parents or grandparents were born in undivided India. Such a person could become a citizen of India by getting registered as a citizen by the diplomatic or consular representative of India in the country where they were residing, on an application made in the prescribed form, whether before or after the Constitution's commencement.
Article 9 — Voluntary Acquisition of Foreign Citizenship Ends Indian Citizenship
Article 9 lays down a simple exclusionary rule: if a person voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State, that person would not be treated as a citizen of India, even if they would otherwise have qualified under Articles 5, 6, or 8. This reflects India's general policy against dual citizenship — the Citizenship Act, 1955, made under Article 11, carries the same principle forward for citizenship acquired after the Constitution's commencement.
Article 10 — Continuance of the Rights of Citizenship
Article 10 provides that every person who is a citizen of India under any of the foregoing provisions (Articles 5 to 8) shall continue to be a citizen, subject to the provisions of any law that Parliament may make. This Article is what links the fixed, one-time determination made at the commencement of the Constitution to the ongoing, changeable statutory framework Parliament was empowered to build afterward.
Article 11 — Parliament's Power to Regulate Citizenship by Law: The Citizenship Act, 1955
Article 11 makes clear that nothing in Articles 5 to 10 limits Parliament's power to make any provision for the acquisition and termination of citizenship, and all other matters relating to citizenship, by law. Parliament exercised this power through the Citizenship Act, 1955, which recognizes five modes of acquiring citizenship after the Constitution's commencement — birth, descent, registration, naturalisation, and incorporation of territory — and three modes of losing it — renunciation, termination (on voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship, applying the same policy as Article 9), and deprivation (by government order, in specified circumstances such as fraud or disloyalty).
- Article 5: citizenship at commencement (26 January 1950) required domicile in India plus birth in India, or a parent born in India, or five years' ordinary residence
- Article 6: migrants from Pakistan before 19 July 1948 became citizens automatically on proof of residence since migration; those who migrated on or after that date needed formal registration after six months' residence
- Article 7: a person who left India for Pakistan after 1 March 1947 but later returned is treated, for Article 6 purposes, as having migrated to India only after 19 July 1948 — registration required regardless of actual return date
- Article 9: voluntarily acquiring a foreign State's citizenship ends any claim to Indian citizenship — India does not recognize dual citizenship
- Article 11 is the source of Parliament's power to make the Citizenship Act, 1955, which governs acquisition and loss of citizenship after the Constitution's commencement
Kulathil Mammu v. State of Kerala (1966) — What "Migrated" Actually Means under Article 7
A person born in Kerala to Indian parents went to Karachi in 1948 as a boy, later returning to India on a Pakistani passport before being found without valid travel documents years afterward. The Supreme Court held that Articles 6, 7, and 8 operate independently of ordinary domicile principles, and that "migrated" in Article 7 means voluntary movement from India to Pakistan — it does not require proof that the person intended to settle permanently there. Since the appellant's 1948 departure qualified as migration in this sense, he fell within Article 7 and could not claim Indian citizenship merely by virtue of birth. This case is the standard authority for reading "migrated" as a factual, voluntary-movement test, not an intention-to-settle test.
Rights Reserved for Citizens vs. Rights Available to All Persons
Why does the citizen/non-citizen distinction matter so much in practice? Because several Fundamental Rights in Part III — most notably those under Article 19 (freedoms of speech, assembly, movement, and profession) — are expressly reserved for citizens only, while other rights, like the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and equality before the law under Article 14, extend to "every person," citizen or not. This is why citizenship disputes are rarely academic — the outcome directly decides which set of constitutional guarantees a person can actually invoke.
Louis De Raedt v. Union of India (1991) — What Non-Citizens Can and Cannot Claim
This case involved foreign nationals residing in India whose stay was sought to be terminated by the government. The Supreme Court held that while Article 21's protection of life and personal liberty extends to every person, including foreigners, this does not translate into a fundamental right for a foreigner to reside and settle in India. The government's power to expel a foreign national is absolute and unfettered, and no pre-decisional hearing is constitutionally mandatory before expulsion — though the Court noted that the petitioners had in fact been given an opportunity in this case. This case is a clear illustration of the line drawn by Articles 5 to 11: citizenship is not merely a technical label, it is the gateway to an entire additional layer of constitutional rights that non-citizens simply do not possess.
- Articles 5 to 11 answer citizenship only as of the Constitution's commencement — they are not a permanent, ongoing citizenship code; that role belongs to the Citizenship Act, 1955, made under Article 11
- Article 8's coverage of "persons of Indian origin residing outside India" is the constitutional root of what later evolved into schemes like Overseas Citizenship of India, though that specific scheme itself comes from later legislation, not directly from Article 8
- India's rejection of dual citizenship (Article 9, carried forward by the Citizenship Act, 1955) is a deliberate policy choice, not a constitutional inevitability — several other countries do permit dual citizenship
Article 6 vs. Article 7 — At a Glance
| Aspect | Article 6 | Article 7 |
|---|---|---|
| Covers | Persons who migrated to India from Pakistan | Persons who first left India for Pakistan, then returned |
| Before 19 July 1948 | Automatic citizenship on proof of residence since migration | Not relevant — treated as migrating after 19 July 1948 regardless of actual return date |
| On/after 19 July 1948 | Registration required, after 6 months' residence | Registration always required, per Article 6(b)(ii) |
A Practical Example
Suppose a person migrated from territory that is now Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) to India in September 1948 — after 19 July 1948. Is this person automatically a citizen of India under Article 6? No. Because the migration occurred on or after 19 July 1948, Article 6(b)(ii) applies, not Article 6(b)(i): the person needed to have applied for and been registered as a citizen of India in the prescribed form before the Constitution commenced, and to have been resident in India for at least six months immediately before that application. Simply having migrated and settled, without completing this registration step, would not by itself confer citizenship — this is precisely the kind of date-sensitive distinction Article 6 draws, and exactly the kind of scenario examiners like to test.
Quick Revision Points
- Article 5: citizenship at commencement required Indian domicile plus birth in India, a parent born in India, or five years' ordinary residence
- Article 6: migrants from Pakistan before 19 July 1948 — automatic citizenship on proof of residence; on/after that date — registration required after 6 months' residence
- Central Bank of India v. Ram Narain (1955): criminal jurisdiction is judged by a person's status at the time the act was committed — a person cannot be tried in India for an act done in what is now Pakistan merely because they later migrated and became an Indian citizen
- Article 7: those who left for Pakistan after 1 March 1947 and later returned are treated as post-19-July-1948 migrants for Article 6 purposes — registration required
- Article 8: persons of Indian origin residing abroad could become citizens by registration with an Indian diplomatic/consular representative
- Article 9: voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship ends Indian citizenship — no dual citizenship
- Article 10: citizenship continues subject to laws Parliament may make; Article 11: source of Parliament's power to enact the Citizenship Act, 1955
- Kulathil Mammu v. State of Kerala (1966): 'migrated' in Articles 6 and 7 means voluntary movement from India to Pakistan — it does not require proof of any intention to settle there permanently
- Louis De Raedt v. Union of India (1991): Article 21 protects all persons, but only citizens hold rights like those under Article 19 — foreigners have no fundamental right to reside in India
© 2026 NyayaSaral