the recognition of a legal status for stateless persons in India. The section concludes by elucidating the core obligation on the Indian state to grant nationality to stateless individuals within its territory using the arguments made in the first section itself. Among other key recommendations made throughout this chapter, it is argued that India should first sign and ratify the two statelessness conventions and the CRMW. the second chapter concerns the protection of civil and political liberties of individuals who have been deprived of their citizenship. The rampant reliance on detention for deportation in India poses a grave threat to the life and liberty of individuals. In view of the same, it extends a four-pronged argument. Firstly, the chapter argues that arbitrary detention of precarious citizens and stateless persons is prohibited since deportation does not serve as a legitimate purpose for them and is disproportionate. Despite this prohibition, there is evidence to show that precarious citizens in Assam are being indefinitely detained. This section further argues for the prohibition of indefinite detention as it is inherently arbitrary. Secondly, there are numerous alternatives to detention available in situations requiring determination of nationality of precarious persons where the state often argues that detention is warranted. These principles must be cautiously resorted to while ensuring that they never become alternative forms of detention. They are endorsed by international law, various national best practices and by the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of India, and are in line with the principle of minimum intervention. Thirdly, detention for deportation cannot be devoid of procedural and substantive rights which are generally available to all incarcerated persons. These rights involve, among others, the right to legal aid, the right to review, the right to information and notice, and the right to release.  23