ABSTRACT
Citizenship in constitutional democracies functions not merely as a legal status conferred by the State, but as a foundational expression of political belonging and equal moral membership. In India, this conception is deeply rooted in the Constitution’s commitment to equality, dignity, & rule of law. This research advances the argument that Indian citizenship law must be interpreted through a jurisprudence of belonging, one that constrains sovereign discretion by constitutional principles of equality, due process, and robust judicial oversight. Through doctrinal and normative analysis, the research examines the constitutional framework governing citizenship, situating Art. 5 to 11 within the broader architecture of fundamental rights, particularly Art. 14 and 21. This research demonstrates that citizenship determinations and exclusions are subject to substantive equality review and procedural fairness requirements, rejecting arbitrary or discriminatory classifications. It further argues that the expansion of due process under Art. 21 necessitates rigorous safeguards in citizenship adjudication, especially given the severe consequences of exclusion, including statelessness and social marginalization. Judicial oversight emerges as a critical constitutional mechanism for preserving inclusivity and preventing majoritarian excesses in citizenship policy.By engaging with constitutional jurisprudence, comparative democratic practices, and principles of constitutional morality, this research conceptualizes citizenship as a relationship of reciprocal obligation between the individual & constitutional order, rather than as a privilege contingent on identity-based criteria. Hence, this research contends that a jurisprudence of belonging is not an abstract moral ideal but a constitutional imperative intrinsic to India’s pluralistic democracy. It concludes that sustained judicial vigilance and rights-oriented interpretation are essential to ensure that citizenship law remains faithful to the Constitution’s transformative vision of equal and inclusive belonging.
Keywords: Citizenship, Constitutionalism, Substantive Equality, Statelessness, Rule of Law, Pluralism.
BACKGROUND
In constitutional democracies, citizenship has undergone a decisive conceptual shift from a narrow juridical status conferred at the discretion of the sovereign to a substantive marker of constitutional belonging grounded in equal moral worth. Classical conceptions treated citizenship as an incident of state sovereignty, an instrument through which the polity defined insiders and outsiders with minimal normative constraint. Contemporary constitutionalism, however, reimagines citizenship as relationship structured by rights, obligations, and participation in a constitutional order. This transformation is anchored in the recognition that citizenship operates as the gateway to the enjoyment of civil, political, and socio-economic rights, rendering exclusion matter of constitutional, rather than merely administrative, concern. The idea of constitutional belonging, thus, foregrounds dignity, equality, and non-arbitrariness, insisting that the power to include or exclude must be justified through principled constitutional reasoning. In this framework, citizenship is no longer a revocable privilege but a status that implicates fundamental rights and is subject to heightened scrutiny, particularly where state action threatens to produce marginalization, statelessness, or civic death.[1]
The Indian constitutional experience exemplifies this evolution with particular force. Emerging from a history marked by deep social plurality&trauma of Partition, the Constitution consciously embraced an inclusive and secular vision of political membership, rejecting ethno-religious or cultural homogeneity as the basis of citizenship. This commitment is reflected not only in the Constituent Assembly Debates but also in the structural interdependence between citizenship provisions and fundamental rights. Contemporary debates on citizenship law, however, have exposed fault lines between constitutional ideals and exclusionary impulses, rendering citizenship a critical site of constitutional contestation. These developments operate as a stress test for India’s constitutional identity, raising urgent questions about the permissible limits of legislative and executive discretion. In this context, equality under Art. 14, due process under Art. 21 & power of judicial review emerges as indispensable safeguards against arbitrary and discriminatory constructions of belonging. Judicial oversight thus assumes a constitutive role in preserving the Constitution’s pluralist ethos, ensuring that citizenship law remains anchored in constitutional morality rather than transient political majorities.[2]
[1] Amit Kumar Singh, Critical Analysis of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 and Its Socio-Legal Consequence, Indian J. of Law & Legal Research vol. V, no. III, 1 (2019).
[2] M. Mohsin Alam Bhat, Constitutional Citizenship in India: Contours and Contradictions, in The Cambridge Companion to the Constitution of India 1 (2024), Queen Mary Law Research Paper No. 439/2025, https://ssrn.com/abstract=4813677 (last visited Jan. 21, 2026).