Tony Perkins

Chair

Gayle Manchin

Vice Chair

Nadine Maenza

Vice Chair

Commissioners

Gary Bauer

Commissioner

Anurima Bhargava

Commissioner

James Carr

Commissioner

Tenzin Dorjee

Commissioner

Sharon Kleinbaum

Commissioner

Johnnie Moore

Commissioner

Erin D. Singshinsuk

Executive Director

USCIRF’s Mission

To advance international 

freedom of religion or 

belief, by independently 

assessing and unflinchingly 

confronting threats to this 

fundamental right.

LEGISLATION FACTSHEET

INDIA

UNITED STATES COMMISSION on

INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

732 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite #A714

Washington, DC 20401

202-523-3240 (p) 202-523-5020 (f)

February 2020

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act in India

By Harrison Akins, Policy Analyst

Just after midnight on December 10, 2019, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) 

passed in the Lok Sabha (the lower house of Indian parliament). Two days later, it 

cleared the Rajya Sabha (the upper house of Indian parliament) and, after quickly 

receiving the assent of Indian President Ram Nath Kovind, became law. A campaign 

promise of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) during both the 2014 and 2019 

parliamentary elections, the CAA provides a fast track for non-Muslim immigrants 

from Muslim-majority Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan to apply for and gain 

Indian citizenship. The law essentially grants individuals of selected, non-Muslim 

communities in these countries refugee status within India and reserves the category 

of “illegal migrant” for Muslims alone.

Opposition parties decried the bill for violating India’s secular foundations and 

expressed worry that it would be used to disenfranchise India’s sizable Muslim 

population. Union Home Minister Amit Shah, who introduced the bill in parliament, 

argued that the CAA has nothing to do with India’s own religious minorities and is 

aimed at protecting those who have suffered from religious persecution in neighboring 

states. The CAA, however, does not require members of the listed non-Muslim 

religious groups to provide any proof of persecution, yet omits Muslim minority 

communities such as Shi’a and Ahmadi Muslims who have faced severe persecution in 

Afghanistan and Pakistan due to their faith. 

The law’s passage sparked large-scale protests across the country that provoked a 

harsh and deadly crackdown by police forces. A wide variety of political parties, 

non-governmental organizations, and religious groups also submitted petitions to the 

Supreme Court challenging the CAA’s constitutionality, arguing that it, in particular, 

violates Section 14 (equality before the law) of the Indian Constitution. A number 

of chief ministers, including in Kerala, Punjab, and West Bengal, announced that 

they would refuse to implement the law in their states with the Kerala government 

also challenging the law in the Supreme Court. Alongside the U.S. Commission 

on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), the United Nations (UN) High 

Commissioner for Human Rights, the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International 

Religious Freedom, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee similarly expressed their 

concern about the law. 

www.USCIRF.gov

@USCIRF

Media@USCIRF.gov
USCIRF Legislation Factsheet: INDIA: February 2020 2

With internal challenges and international criticism 

mounting, this factsheet provides a brief overview of this 

controversial law and explains why it is problematic for 

religious freedom in India. 

Provisions of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act

The provisions of the CAA amend the Citizenship Act of 

1955 as follows: 

 Although the Citizenship Act of 1955 bars illegal 

migrants (defined as foreigners who entered India 

without valid travel documents or entered with a valid 

travel document but stayed beyond the permitted 

period) from obtaining Indian citizenship, any Hindu, 

Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian migrant from 

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, or Pakistan who arrived in 

India on or prior to December 31, 2014, will not be 

treated as an “illegal migrant” under the CAA, allowing 

them to apply for and gain Indian citizenship.

 The CAA grants the aforementioned migrants from 

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan immunity 

from any legal cases against them concerning their 

immigration status.

 For migrants belonging to the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, 

Jain, Parsi, or Christian communities in Afghanistan, 

Bangladesh, and Pakistan, the CAA reduces their 

qualifying length of residency in India before being 

eligible for Indian citizenship from “not less than eleven 

years” to “not less than five years.”

 The CAA contains a provision allowing the government to 

withdraw individuals’ Overseas Citizens of India cards—an 

immigration status allowing foreigners of Indian origin to 

live and work in India without restrictions—if they violate 

any laws for major or minor offenses.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act and 

Religious Freedom in India

There are serious concerns that the CAA serves as a 

protective measure for non-Muslims in case of exclusion 

from a nationwide National Register of Citizens (NRC)—a 

proposed list of all Indian citizens. This purpose is evident 

from BJP politicians’ rhetoric. With the CAA in place, 

Muslims would primarily bear the punitive consequences 

of exclusion from the NRC which could include 

“statelessness, deportation, or prolonged detention,” 

according to three United Nations Special Rapporteurs. 

A nationwide NRC would be based on the process to 

update the list that has been taking place within the 

northeastern state of Assam. The Supreme Court-ordered 

NRC update in Assam, in line with the 1985 Assam Accord, 

is primarily a mechanism for identifying illegal migrants 

in the state. Inclusion in the NRC is based on verification 

of a variety of documents proving an individual’s, or 

his or her descendants’, citizenship prior to March 25, 

1971. When the finalized NRC for Assam was released 

in August 2019, 1.9 million names of Assam residents, 

largely Bengali Muslims, were excluded from the list. 

Amnesty International criticized the NRC process in 

Assam as “shoddy and lackadaisical.” Many impoverished 

families found it difficult to present the necessary 

documents due to poor record keeping or illiteracy. And 

many individuals who had documents were excluded for 

minor inconsistencies such as differences in the spelling 

of a name. Those omitted from the list included veterans

of the Indian army; individuals, especially women and 

children, whose relatives were included in the NRC using 

the same legacy documents; the nephew of former Indian 

President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed; and even the former 

Chief Minister of Assam Syeda Anwara Taimur. Excluded 

individuals were originally given until December 31, 2019 

to appeal their citizenship status to one of hundreds of 

Foreigners’ Tribunals, after which they face placement 

in detention camps and potential statelessness. The 

Foreigners’ Tribunals are quasi-judiciary bodies that lacked 

adequate oversight, transparency, or an appeal process for 

decisions rendered. The Foreigners Tribunals also lacked, 

and struggled to attract, individuals with qualifications 

to serve on the Tribunals with the government lowering

eligibility criteria and failing to provide adequate training. 

As a result, the Foreigners’ Tribunals are ripe for abuse to 

target Muslims already perceived to be foreigners. 

The concern that the BJP intended the NRC in Assam to 

target Muslims is borne out of the reaction of regional 

and national BJP leaders to the release of the finalized 

list in August 2019. The BJP’s support for the NRC 

process quickly shifted when both Muslims and Hindus 

were excluded, given the ethnic politics of Assam that 

perceives ethnic Bengalis regardless of religious identity 

as foreigners. The leader of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak 

Sangh Mohan Bhagwat promised, “No Hindu will be 

expelled even if [that individual’s] name is missing from 

[the] NRC.” BJP leaders also changed their position and 

argued that the finalized list needed to be “re-verified” as 

it was “full of errors.” Assam’s BJP government rejected the 

Supreme Court-monitored process as the NRC “included 

many who should not have been and excluded many who 

are genuine citizens.” To date, the government has not 

yet provided notification of the final NRC list, preventing 
UNITED STATES COMMISSION on INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

732 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite #A714,

Washington, DC 20401

202-523-3240 (p) 202-523-5020 (f)

www.USCIRF.gov

@USCIRF

Media@USCIRF.gov

Professional Staff

Harrison Akins

Policy Analyst 

Danielle Ashbahian

Communications Specialist 

Keely Bakken

Policy Analyst

Dwight Bashir

Director of Outreach and Policy

Elizabeth K. Cassidy

Director of Research and Policy

Patrick Greenwalt

Researcher

Roy Haskins

Director of Finance and Office Management

Thomas Kraemer

Senior Advisor for Strategic Outreach

Kirsten Lavery

International Legal Specialist

Jason Morton

Policy Analyst

Dominic Nardi

Policy Analyst

Jamie Staley

Senior Congressional Relations Specialist

Zachary Udin

Project Specialist

Scott Weiner

Policy Analyst

Kurt Werthmuller

Supervisory Policy Analyst

individuals from appealing their exclusion from the NRC 

in the Foreigners’ Tribunals.

After release of the finalized list, BJP political leaders 

advocated for the CAA as a means of protecting Hindus 

excluded from the NRC in Assam. The provisions of the 

CAA would protect any non-Muslims excluded from 

the NRC from detention and provide them a path to 

Indian citizenship, reserving the label of illegal migrant 

for Muslims alone. As a further corrective measure, 

Home Minister Shah announced in November 2019 that 

a nationwide NRC, which would include Assam, would 

be implemented before the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and 

promised that, through this initiative, the government 

would “selectively throw out all infiltrators.” In late 

December 2019, the Indian Cabinet approved funds for 

conducting a National Population Register (NPR) in 

2020. The NPR is a survey of biographical data of “usual 

residents” (both citizens and non-citizens residing in an 

area for longer than six months), including all residents’ and 

their parents’ places of birth. The first NPR was conducted 

in 2010 with an update in 2015. During November 2014 

debates in the Rajya Sabha, the former BJP Minister of State 

for Home Affairs Kiren Rijiju described the NPR as “the 

first step towards creation of a National Register of Indian 

Citizens by verifying the citizenship status of every usual 

resident.” In the wake of the anti-CAA protests, however, 

Prime Minister Modi argued there had been no discussions 

within the BJP for implementing a nationwide NRC. His 

argument contradicts the public statements by Home 

Minister Shah and BJP leadership as well as the BJP’s 2019 

electoral manifesto which states it “will implement the NRC 

in a phased manner in other parts of the country.” 

The CAA and NRC must also be understood in the 

context of the growing prominence of the BJP’s Hindutva

ideology. This ideological frame views India as a Hindu 

state (with its definition of Hinduism inclusive of 

Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs) and Islam as a foreign and 

invading religion. Hindutva political rhetoric questions 

the legitimacy of Muslims’ Indian citizenship and 

perpetuates the further marginalization of this faith 

community. The BJP Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh 

(UP) Yogi Adityanath, for example, promised in 2005 to 

cleanse India of other religions, calling this the “century of 

Hindutva.” A BJP member of the UP Legislative Assembly 

further argued in January 2018 that India will become a 

purely Hindu nation by 2024 and all Muslims who do not 

assimilate to Hindu culture will need to leave the country. 

This perspective renders Indian Muslims particularly 

vulnerable to exclusion from a nationwide NRC, 

regardless of their citizenship status. 

The NRC process in Assam and the challenges plaguing it 

demonstrate that Indian citizens could be stripped of their 

citizenship in a nationwide NRC. With protections for 

non-Muslims in place under the CAA, however, any future 

NRC process would largely impact Muslims alone. 

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) is an independent, bipartisan federal government entity established by the 

U.S. Congress to monitor, analyze, and report on threats to religious freedom abroad. USCIRF makes foreign policy recommendations to the President, 

the Secretary of State, and Congress intended to deter religious persecution and promote freedom of religion and belief.