The Meaning of ‘Life’ under the Indian Constitution So, the 2003 Rules, by solely relying on documentation, could deprive citizens of citizenship. If such persons have no other citizenship, the NRC updating exercise could potentially render them stateless. B Does the NRC Updating Exercise Violate the Right to ‘Life’ under art 21? It is clear from the above paragraphs that the NRC updating exercise poses a serious risk of statelessness. As discussed before, the state should be obliged under art 21 of the Constitution not to render persons stateless. So, does the NRC updating process violate art 21? Any state action that threatens to violate art 21 rights should be tested against the criteria of procedure established by law. As mentioned in the previous section, the criteria are that there should be a law and this law should be proportional. If the NRC passes this test, there would not be an arbitrary violation of the right to life. The state action in question is the updating of the NRC. The laws pertaining to this exercise are the 1955 Act, the 2003 Rules, the 1964 Order and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Amendment Order 2019 (‘2019 FTO’). Applying the test of proportionality, firstly, the objective of the NRC updating exercise is the identification of illegal migrants. 137 This is a legitimate goal to protect the interests of a state. Secondly, it is doubtful if this state action can identify illegal migrants. There is no evidence to show that the Indian state has considered if the purpose to be achieved can be achieved through the strategy adopted despite the fact that statelessness could be a result of this approach. 138 At best, what the exercise can do is find out who does not possess necessary citizenship documents. This does not necessarily mean that everyone who is not in possession of a required document is an illegal immigrant. As stated previously in this Part, the NRC does not factor in other issues that influence whether a person may have documents to establish citizenship such as the inability to obtain documents and the ignorance about obtaining documents in the past. It arbitrarily creates a distinction between citizens with documents and citizens without documents and penalises those without documents by taking away their citizenship. This is not to say that the Indian state cannot require documentation to prove citizenship. However, a person being unable to establish his nationality for want of documents is different from a person not possessing the citizenship of that state. 139 As UNHCR provides, if documents have ‘been lost or destroyed, this should not be conflated with loss of nationality.’ 140 States have an international human rights obligation to ensure the right to nationality independent of documentation. 141 In this sense, the NRC is not suitable to achieve the legitimate goal it purports to achieve. Thirdly, there is nothing to say that the NRC updating exercise, which poses a threat of statelessness, is the only option available to the Government to control 137 Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha (n 4) [46]. 138 See, Priyaranjan Jha, ‘Identifying Illegal Migrants through NRC Process Will Be Cumbersome, Costs Dar Outweigh Benefits’, The Indian Express (online, 3 January 2020) <https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/nrcs-cost-benefit-analysis-caa-protests6197030/>. See also, Shivam Vij, ‘Why India Doesn’t Need NRC’, The Print (online, 22 November 2019) <https://theprint.in/opinion/why-india-doesnt-need-nrc/324771/>. 139 UN Doc A/HRC/25/28 (n 44) [35]. 140 ibid. 141 ibid [37]. 205