A. T HE R IGHT TO NAT IONALIT Y FOR EV E RY INDIV IDUAL the applicants’ rights with respect to their private and family life.69 Consequently, individuals’ private and family life, as well as the fact that they had established their residence in the country for decades, weighs higher on the proportionality scale if the question of citizenship deprivation ever arises. In other words, these factors would make citizenship deprivation an arbitrary and unlawful exercise. These factors are clearly applicable in the case of precarious citizens in Assam, who have a genuine link to India [↘], and strengthen the conclusion that they are at the risk of arbitrary deprivation of nationality. Thirdly, citizenship deprivation process must always be in accordance with the law. This is possible only when it is true to its letter and object, has a clear and clearly articulated legal basis for such a measure, and is predictable.70 Despite the Supreme Court of India confirming that the principle of res judicata applies to FT decisions,71 there are several ground reports of individuals who had been declared as Indians by FTs being served notice and having their citizenship questioned once again.72 This translates to a situation where, in practice, the citizenship deprivation exercise in Assam lacks finality and fails to protect individuals from multiple litigation arising from the same cause. The Supreme Court repeatedly revised the list of documents that individuals could file in order to establish their citizenship.73 The burden is upon the precarious citizens to prove their Indian 69  Kuric and others v Slovenia App no 26828/06 (ECtHR, 26 June 2012). 70  Shamima Begum v Special Immigration Appeals Division (n 34). See ‘Skeleton Argument of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Combating Terrorism’ (n 34). See also Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion, ‘Draft Commentary to the Principles on Deprivation of Nationality’ (n 35) 52. 71  Abdul Kuddus v Union of India and Ors (2019) 6 SCC 604. 72 Amnesty International, ‘Designed to Exclude’ (n 46) 44 - 45; Sagar,‘Case Closed: How Assam’s Foreigners Tribunals, aided by the High Court, function like kangaroo courts and persecute its minorities’ (Caravan Magazine, 6 November 2019) <https://caravanmagazine.in/law/assamforeigners-tribunals-function-like-kangaroo-courts-persecute-minorities> accessed 30 July 2020; Sagar, ‘A case of double incrimination reveals the chimera of fair trials in Foreigners Tribunals’ (Caravan Magazine, 25 November 2019) <https://caravanmagazine.in/law/foreigner-tribunal-assamnrc-jalal-seikh-double-jeopardy> accessed 31 July 2020. 73 Mohsin Alam Bhat, ‘On the NRC, Even the Supreme Court is Helpless’ The Wire (7 January 2019) <https://thewire.in/law/nrc-supreme-court-crisis> accessed 23 July 2020. chapter i • status 59 SECTION I.A.3.2 see Section I.A.1 (Chapter I), pg 43