Statelessness Working Paper Series No. 2017/02 shall be directed to “the development of respect for the child’s parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values”59 and that children belonging to “States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities or persons of indigenous origin exist” shall not be denied to practice their language. For a socio-linguistically diverse country like India, Rule No.10 adopts an exclusionist approach to naturalisation. Moreover, those who are stateless most likely have no formal education or documents to prove their qualifications and thus such requirement could be an impediment if they fulfil all other requirements. Naturalisation may be the only alternative for stateless persons who are not eligible for other avenues to Indian citizenship. Article 32 of the 1954 Convention requires States to “as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalisation of stateless persons […] in particular make every effort to expedite naturalisation proceedings and to reduce as far as possible the charges and costs of such proceedings.”60 Instead of facilitating naturalisations of stateless persons, the criteria laid out in the Citizenship Act concerning naturalisation are simply too rigid to consider stateless persons. Although the provisions in the Citizenship Act concerning naturalisation do not create statelessness per se, they do sustain the problem as they bar stateless persons from obtaining Indian citizenship through naturalisation. 2.2.5 Renunciation of Citizenship Section 8 of the Indian Citizenship Act provides for the renunciation of Indian Citizenship. This is aligned with Article 15 (2) of the UDHR which states that everyone has the “right to change their nationality.”61 However the procedure does not at any point request authoritative proof or assurance of the subsequent nationality that the person has acquired or intends to acquire; the declaration form merely requires the applicant to mention ‘(second) nationality’.62 In circumstances where citizenship renunciation is registered before the person has successfully acquired the nationality of another State, the person is vulnerable to the risk of statelessness. This is not in line with Article 7(1)(a) of the 1961 Convention which requires States to not permit the renunciation of nationality unless the individual possesses or acquires another nationality.63 According to the Tunis Conclusions, States must ensure that renunciation of citizenship would not result in statelessness by “providing for a lapse of the renunciation if the individual concerned fails to acquire the foreign nationality within a fixed period of time.”64 As a result the renunciation should be considered void, thus preventing the risk of statelessness. The Conclusions noted that some Contracting States require applicants intending to naturalise to have renounced their former nationality and give assurance that the naturalisation would be granted followed by proof of 59 Article 29(c), UNGA, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, United Nations, UNTS, vol. 1577, p. 3 60 Article 32, Article 1, UNGA, Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, 28 September 1954, UNTS, vol. 360. 61 Article 15(2), Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III) 62 Rule 23 (in conjunction with Form XXII), The Citizenship Rules, 2009 63 Article 7 (1)(a), UNGA, Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, 30 August 1961, UNTS, vol. 989 64 UNHCR, ‘Expert meeting: Interpreting the 1961 Statelessness Convention and Avoiding Statelessness resulting from Loss and Deprivation of Nationality: Summary Conclusions.’ ("Tunis Conclusions"), November 2013, para 42 7