Citizenship (Articles 5–11) — Citizenship Act, Acquisition, Loss

Articles 5 to 11 of the Constitution do a narrow but indispensable job: they fix the body of persons who became citizens of India at the moment the Constitution commenced on 26 January 1950. They are not a permanent code of nationality. The permanent code is supplied by the Citizenship Act, 1955, enacted under the express delegation in Article 11. Read together, the seven Articles in Part II and the 1955 statute set out the law on who is, and who ceases to be, an Indian citizen.

The architecture matters for the exam-aspirant. Articles 5 to 8 each declare a category of person who was a citizen on 26 January 1950. Article 9 cuts that body down by excluding those who had voluntarily acquired foreign citizenship before commencement. Article 10 preserves the citizenship so vested, subject to any law Parliament may make. Article 11 then hands the entire field of subsequent acquisition and termination to Parliament. Every later question — naturalisation, registration of an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI), renunciation, loss for taking foreign citizenship — is answered out of the Citizenship Act, 1955, not out of the Constitution itself. The opening four chapters of Part I — the Constitution of India as a whole, the Preamble, and the Union and its territory — define the polity; Part II tells you who that polity belongs to.

Article 5 — citizenship by domicile at commencement

Article 5 is the foundational provision. At the commencement of the Constitution, every person who had his domicile in the territory of India and who satisfied any one of three further conditions became a citizen of India. The three conditions are alternative, not cumulative — the person must (a) have been born in the territory of India, or (b) have either parent born in the territory of India, or (c) have been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding the commencement.

The basic condition is domicile in India on 26 January 1950. The Supreme Court in Abdul Sattar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 810, treated this as the threshold requirement: mere domicile is not enough — the person must additionally fall within clause (a), (b) or (c). The point was reiterated in D.P. Joshi v. State of M.P., AIR 1955 SC 334, where the Court underlined that domicile by itself does not confer Indian citizenship.

Domicile — meaning and proof

Domicile is the place where a person's habitation is fixed without any present intention of moving from it. Mere residence is not enough. The leading authority is Central Bank of India v. Ram Narain, AIR 1955 SC 36: every person has a domicile of origin from birth, and that domicile continues until a new domicile is acquired animo et facto — by actually settling in another country with the intention of permanently residing there. The onus of proving a change of domicile lies on the person asserting it, and the Court will examine the course of his conduct both before and after the material time (Kedar Pandey v. Narain Bikram Sah, AIR 1966 SC 160).

The domicile of a minor is that of his father at the time of birth (Raza Dabhani v. State of Bombay, AIR 1966 SC 1436). A married woman acquires the domicile of her husband on marriage but is capable of acquiring a new domicile by remarriage after divorce or death of the husband (State of Bihar v. Amar Singh Kumar, AIR 1955 SC 282). A critical doctrinal point: the Constitution recognises only one domicile — the domicile of India. Unlike some federal systems, there is no separate State domicile, as the Supreme Court held in Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1420 — a holding that drives much of the case-law on residence-based reservations in the right to equality and admission to professional courses.

'Ordinarily resident' under clause (c)

The five-year residence requirement under Article 5(c) does not demand that the person should have resided in India every single day during the period; what is required is residence during the period without any serious break (Attaullah v. Attaullah, AIR 1952 Cal 530). The reckoning runs backwards from 26 January 1950 — the date which Article 394 fixes as the commencement of the Constitution, even though the Preamble and Part XX provisions came into force earlier on 26 November 1949. The expression 'every person' is wide: it includes a prisoner (State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang Sanzgiri, AIR 1966 SC 424) and a member of the Armed Forces (subject to the freedom-of-association limitation in Article 33) — see Prithi Pal Singh Bedi v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1413.

Article 6 — migrants from Pakistan to India

Article 6 deals with persons who migrated to India from the territory now included in Pakistan. Such a person is deemed to be a citizen of India at commencement if (a) he or either of his parents or any of his grandparents was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 (as originally enacted) — that is, undivided British India together with the Indian States — and (b) one of two conditions is satisfied as to the timing of migration.

1. If the person migrated before 19 July 1948, he must have been ordinarily resident in the territory of India since the date of migration. No registration is required.
2. If the person migrated on or after 19 July 1948, he must have been registered as a citizen of India by an officer appointed by the Government of the Dominion of India, on an application made before the commencement of the Constitution. The proviso adds that no person shall be so registered unless he has been resident in the territory of India for at least six months immediately preceding the date of his application.

The 19 July 1948 line is the date on which the Influx from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance came into operation. Before that date the boundary was effectively open; afterwards, entry required a permit. Article 6 calibrates the citizenship test to that operational watershed.

Article 7 — migrants from India to Pakistan

Article 7 cuts the other way. Notwithstanding Articles 5 and 6, a person who, after 1 March 1947, migrated from the territory of India to the territory now included in Pakistan, shall not be deemed to be a citizen of India. The exception is the proviso: a person who, after migrating to Pakistan, returns to India under a permit for resettlement or permanent return shall be treated as having migrated to India after 19 July 1948 — that is, he is brought back into the registration route under Article 6(b).

What 'migration' means under Article 7

The Supreme Court has been careful to keep the word 'migration' under Articles 6 and 7 distinct from the technical concept of 'change of domicile' in Private International Law. In Kulathil Mammu v. State of Kerala, AIR 1966 SC 1614, the Court held that 'migration' means voluntarily moving — but not for a specific purpose and not for a short and limited period. The intention of permanent residence, which is essential to a change of domicile, is not necessary for migration. Departure for employment or for labour for an indefinite period is sufficient.

Two corollaries follow. First, even a minor or a married woman may be held to have migrated, even though they may not in law acquire a domicile of choice. The Private International Law rule that a wife's domicile follows her husband's was applied in State of Bihar v. Amar Singh Kumar for the purpose of Article 5, but the Supreme Court in Abdus Samad v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1973 SC 505, expressly refused to extend it to the meaning of 'migration' under Article 7. A Muslim wife who went to Pakistan after 1 March 1947, leaving her husband in India, would lose her Indian citizenship under Article 7 unless she proved that she went only for some temporary purpose, or returned under a valid permit for permanent return (as distinguished from a Pakistani passport — see Naziranbai v. State, AIR 1957 MB 1).

Second, a temporary visit to Pakistan on business or otherwise does not constitute migration. In State of A.P. v. Khader, AIR 1961 SC 1467, a citizen of India was held not to have lost citizenship merely because he had visited Pakistan on a short trip. Conversely, a person who, after moving to Pakistan, came back into India on a temporary permit representing himself as a Pakistani national could hardly claim that he had gone there only for a temporary purpose (Amar Singh Kumar).

The migration spoken of in Article 7 is migration between 1 March 1947 and 26 January 1950. Movements after the commencement of the Constitution are governed not by Article 7 but by Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, on the loss of citizenship by acquisition of foreign nationality.

Article 8 — persons of Indian origin abroad

Article 8 reaches outwards. Any person who, or either of whose parents or any of whose grandparents, was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 (as originally enacted), and who is ordinarily residing in any country outside India as so defined, shall be deemed to be a citizen of India if he has been registered as such by the diplomatic or consular representative of India in the country of his residence, on an application made by him in the prescribed form, whether before or after the commencement of the Constitution.

Three points are exam-worthy. (i) Article 8 requires registration — there is no automatic vesting of citizenship by mere descent or birth in undivided India. (ii) The link is to the territory defined by the 1935 Act, so persons born in territories now in Pakistan or Bangladesh whose descent satisfies the clause may avail Article 8 even though their birthplace is no longer Indian territory. (iii) The date from which registration takes effect is governed by Section 5(5) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, not by Article 8 itself.

Article 9 — bar on dual citizenship at commencement

Article 9 disqualifies a person from being a citizen by virtue of Articles 5, 6 or 8 if he had voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any foreign State. The Article addresses only acquisitions before 26 January 1950; loss of citizenship by post-commencement acquisition of a foreign nationality is governed by Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 — see State of U.P. v. Shah Md., AIR 1969 SC 1234.

The word 'foreign State' for the purposes of Article 9 carries the meaning given by Article 367(3) read with the Constitution (Declaration as to Foreign States) Order, 1950. By that Order, Pakistan was, for some purposes, declared not to be a foreign State; but the Supreme Court has held that the words 'foreign State' do not occur in Article 7 and that Article 9 has no application to Article 7. The result is that a person who migrated to Pakistan after 1 March 1947 and acquired Pakistani nationality cannot claim Indian citizenship — that consequence flows from Article 7, not Article 9 (Abdul Sattar Haji Ibrahim Patel v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 810).

'Voluntarily acquired' and the procedure under Section 9(2)

The single most litigated question in this area is whether a person who has been a citizen of India under Article 5 or 6 or 8 (or under the 1955 Act) has subsequently lost that citizenship by voluntarily acquiring the citizenship of a foreign State — most often by obtaining a Pakistani passport. The Supreme Court has held, in a long line of cases beginning with State of A.P. v. Khader, that this question must be determined by the Central Government under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and not by any court. The Constitution Bench in Izhar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1052, held that a State Government has no jurisdiction to determine the question unless the function is delegated under Article 258. The exclusive nature of the Central Government's jurisdiction means that the question cannot be decided by a civil suit (Akbar Khan v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 70), nor in proceedings under Article 226 (State of M.P. v. Peer Md., AIR 1963 SC 645), nor under Article 32 of the right to constitutional remedies.

A determination under Section 9(2) is a condition precedent to any action against the alleged foreigner. If a person has been convicted or deported on this ground before such determination, the order must be set aside, though the Government remains free to take fresh action after the determination is made (State of Gujarat v. Ibrahim Yakub, AIR 1974 SC 645; Government of A.P. v. Syed Md. Khan, AIR 1962 SC 1778). The procedure under Section 9(2) is itself quasi-judicial: the person concerned must be given an opportunity to show that he did not voluntarily acquire foreign citizenship — for instance, that the Pakistani passport was obtained by force, fraud or misrepresentation (Ayub Khan Mohd. v. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1965 SC 1623). The duty of the authority deciding citizenship even for the limited purpose of another statute was emphasised in Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer, (1995) 3 SCC 100, where the Supreme Court linked careful citizenship determination to the integrity of electoral rolls maintained by the Election Commission.

Dual citizenship — limits

India does not permit dual citizenship in the full sense. The point was made in Dipali Katia Chadha v. Union of India, (1996) 7 SCC 432, where the petitioners had acquired British and Finnish nationality through birth and the mother's nationality and also claimed Indian citizenship by descent through their Indian father. The Court remitted the matter to the Central Government to decide whether the foreign citizenship had been 'voluntarily' acquired. The Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) scheme later introduced under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 confers a long-term visa and limited civic rights but is not, in law, a second citizenship.

Articles 10 and 11 — continuance and parliamentary control

Article 10 says that every person who is or is deemed to be a citizen of India under the foregoing provisions of Part II shall, subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, continue to be such citizen. Article 11 then makes the parliamentary power explicit: nothing in the foregoing provisions shall derogate from the power of Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship.

Two doctrinal consequences follow. First, the citizenship vested by Articles 5 to 8 is itself defeasible by parliamentary law — the Constitution does not freeze the body of citizens in 1950. Second, and more importantly, the Constitution does not lay down a permanent or comprehensive code of citizenship. As the Supreme Court observed in Shah Md., the framers consciously left that field to Parliament. The power conferred by Article 11 is not fettered by Articles 5 to 10; it is open to Parliament to take away or affect citizenship already acquired under the earlier Articles (Izhar Ahmad Khan). This is why the Citizenship Act, 1955 — and not the Constitution — is the operative statute on every post-1950 question.

The Citizenship Act, 1955 — acquisition

The Citizenship Act, 1955 was enacted in exercise of the Article 11 power. It recognises five modes of acquisition of Indian citizenship.

1. By birth (Section 3). Every person born in India on or after 26 January 1950 was originally a citizen by birth. Two restrictive amendments matter. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1986 narrowed the rule for births on or after 1 July 1987: the person is a citizen by birth only if either parent was a citizen of India at the time of birth. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 narrowed it further for births on or after 3 December 2004: the person is a citizen by birth only if both parents are citizens of India, or one parent is a citizen and the other is not an illegal migrant, at the time of birth.
2. By descent (Section 4). A person born outside India is a citizen by descent if either parent was a citizen of India at the time of birth, subject to registration with the Indian consulate where required by the section as amended.
3. By registration (Section 5). Available for specified categories — persons of Indian origin ordinarily resident in India for the prescribed period, persons married to Indian citizens, minor children of Indian citizens, and others.
4. By naturalisation (Section 6). The Central Government may grant a certificate of naturalisation to a foreigner who satisfies the qualifications in the Third Schedule — these include residence or service of the Government for the prescribed aggregate period, good character, adequate knowledge of a language specified in the historical background of the Eighth Schedule, renunciation of foreign citizenship, and intention to reside in India.
5. By incorporation of territory (Section 7). Where any territory becomes a part of India, the Central Government may by order specify the persons of that territory who shall become citizens of India.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019

The 2019 Amendment carved an exception in the proviso to Section 2(1)(b) of the Act: persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, who entered India on or before 31 December 2014, are not to be treated as illegal migrants for the purposes of the Act. The Amendment also relaxes the residence requirement for naturalisation for these specified categories. The constitutional validity of the Amendment under Article 14 is sub judice. The legislative competence is anchored in Article 11; the contested question is whether the religion-based eligibility violates the equality guarantee.

The Citizenship Act, 1955 — loss

Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the 1955 Act provide three modes of loss of Indian citizenship.

1. Renunciation (Section 8). A citizen of India of full age and capacity, who is also a citizen or national of another country, may renounce Indian citizenship by making a declaration in the prescribed manner. On registration of the declaration, the person ceases to be a citizen. Every minor child of that person also ceases to be a citizen, but may, within one year of attaining majority, resume Indian citizenship.
2. Termination (Section 9). Any citizen of India who voluntarily acquires the citizenship of another country shall, upon such acquisition, cease to be a citizen of India. Whether the acquisition was voluntary is determined by the Central Government in accordance with the rules — this is the post-commencement counterpart to Article 9.
3. Deprivation (Section 10). The Central Government may deprive a person of Indian citizenship — but only where citizenship was obtained by registration or naturalisation, and only on the grounds specified: fraud, false representation, concealment of material fact, disloyalty to the Constitution, unlawful trading or communicating with an enemy in wartime, sentence of imprisonment of not less than two years within five years of registration or naturalisation, or continuous residence outside India for seven years without specified excuse.

OCI and PIO

The Overseas Citizen of India scheme was introduced by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 (substituted in its present form by the 2005 Amendment). An OCI is registered under Section 7A and enjoys parity with non-resident Indians for many civil and economic rights — multiple-entry life-long visa, parity in domestic air-fares, exemption from registration as a foreigner — but is denied political rights. An OCI cannot vote in elections, cannot hold the office of President, Vice-President, Judge of the Supreme Court or High Court, or contest a parliamentary or assembly seat. The PIO (Person of Indian Origin) card scheme was merged into the OCI scheme in 2015.

The Assam line — the IMDT regime and Sarbananda Sonowal

The most consequential modern judgment on citizenship law is Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665. The Supreme Court, by a Constitution Bench, struck down the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983, which had applied a special procedure for determining who was an illegal migrant in Assam, putting the burden of proof on the State rather than on the alleged migrant. The Court held that the IMDT Act made the detection and deportation of illegal migrants in Assam virtually impossible, and that this amounted to a failure of the Union's duty to protect the State against external aggression under Article 355 — read with the Centre-State responsibilities discussed in centre-State administrative relations and the broader scheme considered in the emergency provisions. The general burden of proof under the Foreigners Act, 1946 — which puts the burden on the person alleged to be a foreigner — was restored.

The judgment is the doctrinal anchor for the present National Register of Citizens (NRC) regime in Assam under the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003. The cut-off date for inclusion in Assam's NRC is 24 March 1971, derived from the Assam Accord of 15 August 1985 and embodied in Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Section 6A — itself the product of the political settlement of the Assam agitation — was upheld by a Constitution Bench in 2024.

Citizenship and the rest of the Constitution

Several constitutional rights and duties are tied to the status of citizenship and are not available to non-citizens. The classical list is: Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on certain grounds), Article 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment), the six freedoms of Article 19, the cultural and educational rights under Article 29, and the rights to vote and contest under Articles 326, 84 and 173. The contrast with the personhood rights — life and liberty under Article 21, equality before law under Article 14, the protections of Articles 20 and 22 — is a recurring exam point under the fundamental rights chapter. Citizenship status is also the precondition for entry into the entry on 'citizenship, naturalisation and aliens' in Entry 17 of List I.

The State, for the purposes of fundamental rights addressed against it, is defined in Article 12; but the rights themselves run in favour of citizens or persons depending on the text of the particular Article. Citizenship, in short, decides the universe of right-holders; Maneka Gandhi and the doctrinal arc of the basic structure doctrine then decide what those right-holders may demand of the State.

Special application and frontier issues

Two further points of doctrine deserve a note. The Constitution as originally applied to the State of Jammu and Kashmir contained an additional proviso to Article 7, allowing for the return of permanent residents of the State who had migrated to Pakistan and returned under a State permit; that special application is now of historical interest after the recasting effected through the special provisions relating to certain States. Separately, the National Human Rights Commission's invocation of Article 21 for stateless Chakma refugees in Arunachal Pradesh — National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (1996) 4 SCC 742 — established that a Collector who receives an application for registration of a non-citizen as a citizen is constitutionally obliged to forward it to the Central Government; refusal would amount to denial of a statutory and constitutional right.

How the Articles relate — a synthesis

Articles 5 to 8 vest citizenship at commencement in four overlapping categories: domiciled residents (Article 5), Pakistan-to-India migrants (Article 6), India-to-Pakistan migrants returning under permit (Article 7 proviso) and persons of Indian origin abroad (Article 8). Article 9 disqualifies those who had voluntarily taken foreign citizenship before commencement. Article 10 preserves the citizenship so vested. Article 11 then transfers the entire field of post-commencement law to Parliament.

Below the constitutional layer sits the Citizenship Act, 1955 — five modes of acquisition (birth, descent, registration, naturalisation, incorporation of territory) and three modes of loss (renunciation, termination, deprivation), with the OCI scheme as a long-term residency overlay. The Sarbananda Sonowal line and Section 6A regime form the Assam-specific apparatus; the 2019 Amendment is the most recent and most contested layer. The exam-aspirant's central insight is structural: do not look to the Constitution for naturalisation rules; do not look to the Citizenship Act for the body of persons who became citizens at commencement. The work is divided. The reading list begins with the Article and ends with the case-law gathered around it, much like the rest of the landmark constitutional cases.

Frequently asked questions

Does India allow dual citizenship?

No. India does not permit dual citizenship in the full legal sense. Article 9 of the Constitution disqualified a person from Indian citizenship at commencement if he had voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any foreign State; Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 carries the same rule into the post-commencement period — a citizen who voluntarily acquires the nationality of another country ceases to be an Indian citizen. The Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) scheme introduced in 2003 is a long-term visa with limited civic rights; it is not a second citizenship and confers no political rights such as voting or holding constitutional office.

What is the difference between domicile and citizenship under Article 5?

Domicile is a private-law concept — the place where a person's habitation is fixed without any present intention of moving from it. Citizenship is a public-law status conferred by Article 5 (or by the Citizenship Act, 1955). Domicile in India is a necessary but not sufficient condition for Article 5 citizenship: the person must additionally satisfy clause (a), (b) or (c) of the Article. The Supreme Court underlined the distinction in Abdul Sattar v. State of Gujarat (1965) and D.P. Joshi v. State of M.P. (1955). The Constitution recognises only one domicile — that of India — and not separate State domiciles (Pradeep Jain, 1984).

Who decides whether a person has lost Indian citizenship by acquiring a foreign passport?

The Central Government, exclusively, under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The Supreme Court has held that no court — not a civil court by suit, not a High Court under Article 226, not the Supreme Court under Article 32 — may decide the question; the proceedings must be stayed pending the Central Government's determination (State of M.P. v. Peer Md., 1963). State Governments have no jurisdiction unless the function is delegated under Article 258 (Izhar Ahmad Khan, 1962). The determination is a condition precedent to any deportation or prosecution as a foreigner; an order passed before the determination is liable to be set aside.

What did Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India hold?

The Constitution Bench in Sarbananda Sonowal (2005) 5 SCC 665 struck down the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983, which applied only to Assam and put the burden of proving illegal migration on the State. The Court held that the IMDT Act made detection and deportation of illegal migrants virtually impossible and amounted to a failure of the Union's duty under Article 355 to protect the State against external aggression. The general burden under the Foreigners Act, 1946 — which puts the burden on the alleged foreigner — was restored. The judgment is the doctrinal foundation for the present NRC regime under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act.

Can citizenship granted under Articles 5 to 8 be taken away by Parliament?

Yes. Article 10 expressly subjects the continuance of citizenship to any law that Parliament may make. Article 11 then confers an unfettered power on Parliament to legislate on the acquisition and termination of citizenship. The Supreme Court in Izhar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India (1962) held that this power is not fettered by Articles 5 to 10; it is open to Parliament, in exercise of the power, to take away or affect citizenship already acquired under the earlier Articles. The Citizenship Act, 1955 is the principal exercise of that power, and Section 9 (loss by acquisition of foreign citizenship) is the operative provision for post-commencement losses.