2021 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 3(1) illegal migration or identify illegal migrants. To its credit, Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha v Union of India prescribes other measures for preventing illegal migration such as stricter border control. 142 So, it cannot be said that the NRC, which has the potential to create statelessness on a massive scale, is the only option available to the Government. Fourthly, the NRC has a disproportionate effect on rights holders who are inhabitants of Assam. The exercise applies to the whole of the State of Assam and questions the citizenship of everyone in the state, at the cost of creating mass statelessness through arbitrary criteria, while laying down a high standard of proof, without showing cause to doubt the citizenship of the whole population in the first place. The justification claimed for this is the protection of national security. Even if it were to be considered that the presence of illegal migrants leads to such concerns, given that there may be other measures to protect national security, this creates disproportionate effects on the inhabitants of Assam. Given that statelessness leads to deprivation of ‘life’ and curtails access to all other human rights, mass deprivation of people’s citizenship through state action on the basis of documents is not proportional. Quantitatively, this means that the state without considering alternative ways of protecting national security has decided to expose about 1.9 million people to the risk of statelessness where they could end up with no ‘place in the world’ and expelled from humanity. Therefore, the NRC does not meet the criteria under art 21 of the Constitution. At this juncture, it is important to consider the implications of Sarbananda Sonowal v Union of India where the Court recognised that the presence of illegal migrants in the state of Assam was a national security concern. 143 Firstly, even in the case of national security concerns, the above argument on proportionality under art 21 applies and the NRC updating exercise cannot be justified on this count. Secondly, under international law, a state could take an action that results in statelessness if a vital interest of the state is involved. 144 Vital interest of state is of a higher standard than national interest and includes acts that seriously prejudice its integrity or security. 145 Even if it were to be assumed that illegal migration seriously prejudices India’s security, there is no link between creating statelessness through a procedure that sets a high bar of documentation which could denationalise citizens and the protection of the arguable vital interest namely, identification of illegal migrants. On the other hand, an Indian citizen could be deprived of their nationality because they cannot show documentary linkages as required by the 2003 Rules and the 2019 FTO. Under the 1955 Act, there are limited grounds under which a citizen can be deprived of their citizenship after following the due procedure mentioned in the Act. 146 These grounds do not cover deprivation of citizenship on the basis that a person cannot any longer prove their citizenship through documents. This means that the 2003 Rules and the 2019 FTO could deprive citizens of citizenship on a ground not recognised by the 1955 Act, which is the 142 See Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha (n 4) [45]. 143 Sarbananda Sonowal v Union of India (2005) WP(C) 131 of 2000 (Supreme Court of India) [5] (Lahoti, Mathur and Balasubramanyan JJ). 144 See Part 3(A). 145 Guidelines on Statelessness No. 5: Loss and Deprivation of Nationality under Arts 5–9 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, UN Doc HCR/GS/20/05 (May 2020) [62]. 146 Citizenship Act 1955 (India) ss 10(2)–(3). 206