Statelessness Working Paper Series No. 2017/02 acquired regardless of the misrepresentation or fraud. The Tunis Conclusions noted that “due consideration should be given to the motivation of the individual such as why a person committed the act(s) in question”. One example provided related to provision of incorrect information during a naturalisation procedure because the applicant feared that use of their full and correct identity would endanger family members in another country. Another area of concern is the often poor quality of supporting identity documents from civil registration systems and other administrative registries. These documents often contain minor errors or discrepancies relating to the identity of individuals. These realities need to be taken into account in assessing cases of alleged misrepresentation or fraud.” It also clarified that deprivation cannot be justified if the person did not know or could not have known that the information provided was untrue.87 Section 10(b) makes it unforeseeable which acts would amount to disloyalty towards the Constitution, and thus could be used arbitrarily. Regarding Section 10(d), imprisonment in any country within five years of registration or naturalisation is also an unfair ground for deprivation as it does not distinguish between serious and less serious crimes, thus appears only to further punish said individual. Section 10(e) can also be seen as a punitive measure for those residing abroad beyond seven years. This could be a concern for many Non-Resident Indians (NRIs)88, which is a large population.89 The Tunis Conclusions recognized that deprivation of nationality based on prolonged residence abroad is not justified where the result is statelessness and the impact on the individual outweighs the objective sought by the state.90 By virtue of Section 10(3), the Central Government ultimately decides on said deprivation depending on whether it is “satisfied that it is not conducive to the public good.”91 This is a highly subjective criterion and it is probable that the government could use this section arbitrarily and discriminatorily. So although it appears as though precautions are provided in the procedure before deprivation takes place, the discretionary power of the Central Government to disregard the report of Committee of Inquiry undermines the judicial character of the procedure which has the potential to create statelessness. 2.3 Identification of persons in India 2.3.1 Section 14A, Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 Section 14A of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 created a method of mapping Indian citizens by making it compulsory that every Indian citizen is registered and issued a national identity card.92 Rule no.4 of the Citizenship Rules of 2003, provides that in cases where during the verification process, the individuals citizenship is doubtful, further examination will take place.93 Rule no.5 further 87 UNHCR, ‘Expert meeting: Interpreting the 1961 Statelessness Convention an Avoiding Statelessness resulting from Loss and Deprivation of Nationality: Summary Conclusions.’ ("Tunis Conclusions"), November 2013, para 58-59 88 Indian citizens residing abroad 89 Statistics of Indians in Abroad, available at: http://www.nriol.com/indiandiaspora/statistics-indians-abroad.asp [accessed 19 November 2016] 90 UNHCR, ‘Expert meeting: Interpreting the 1961 Statelessness Convention an Avoiding Statelessness resulting from Loss and Deprivation of Nationality: Summary Conclusions.’ ("Tunis Conclusions"), November 2013, para 55 91 Section 10, The Citizenship Act, 1955 92 Section 14 A (1), The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 93 Rule 4, The Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003 10