A. T HE R IGHT TO NAT IONALIT Y FOR EV E RY INDIV IDUAL deportation.59 Therefore, the deprivation exercise in Assam is arbitrary and unlawful. Secondly, the nationality deprivation exercise must satisfy the international law principle of proportionality. This principle is paramount in all cases of deprivation of nationality.60 It requires the State in question ‘to carry out an individual assessment to determine, inter alia, that the immediate and long-term impact of deprivation of nationality on the rights of the individual, their family, and on society is proportionate to the legitimate purpose being pursued’.61 The state must also make sure that the deprivation of nationality is the ‘least intrusive means of achieving the stated legitimate purpose’.62 The Supreme Court of India has asserted the proportionality principle in assessing state actions that infringe fundamental rights.63 Furthermore, prohibitions against arbitrary restrictions on individuals’ liberty and rights are found in Articles 9 and 13 of the UDHR, and Article 12 of the ICCPR. Indian citizenship law adds another balancing factor that no deprivation shall occur if it is not conducive to ‘public good’ [↘].64 The precarious citizens in Assam are Indian nationals who do not have any other proven nationality. The citizenship deprivation processes are fundamentally disproportionate since they will put them at the risk of statelessness. The precarious citizens are also facing a threat to their rights to legal personhood, dignity, and privacy, owing to their present state of limbo. They are being detained and separated from their children, partners 59 Home and Political Department, Government of Assam, Foreigners’ Issue (White Paper, 2012) <https:// cjp.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/White-Paper-On-Foreigners-Issue-20-10-2012.pdf> accessed 24 May 2020. See also Ministry of Home Affairs, Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 1680 (2019) <https:// www.mha.gov.in/MHA1/Par2017/pdfs/par2019-pdfs/ls-02072019/1680.pdf> accessed 20 August 2020. 60 Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion, ‘Draft Commentary to the Principles on Deprivation of Nationality’ (n 35) 58. 61 ibid. 62 ibid. 63  K S Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 (Right to Privacy case); Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Ors v State of M.P. & Ors (2016) Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2009 (Supreme Court of India). 64 The Citizenship Act 1955, s 10(3). chapter i • status 57 SECTION I.A.3.2 see Section I.B.2 (Chapter I), pg 69