2021 2 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 3(1) Nationality as an Aspect of Dignified ‘Life’ Drawing from the right to nationality in the UDHR, ‘life’ can be interpreted as the obligation not to render persons stateless, which is an aspect of the right to nationality. Neither the 1955 Act nor the citizenship provisions in the Constitution deal with the issue of statelessness and therefore do not exclude the application of art 15 of the UDHR. On the other hand, given that there is a lacuna in Indian law dealing with the obligation not to render persons stateless and also given that Indian courts have striven to interpret domestic law harmoniously with international human rights law, art 15 of the UDHR should apply in the interpretation of ‘life’ under art 21 of the Constitution. The list of rights that constitute the right to life under art 21 is not exhaustive and fundamental rights cannot be narrowly construed ignoring international and national developments and changes in circumstances. 104 The expansive interpretation of art 21 is based on the assumption that the right to life has unarticulated, inherent rights. 105 The Supreme Court has arrived at this expansive interpretation from the ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ in Part IV of the Constitution as well as international law including the UDHR and ICCPR. 106 All of this means that ‘life��� should be interpreted by the international obligation not to render persons stateless. This is firstly due to the effects of statelessness, which necessitates the evolution of art 21. Secondly, because the human dignity aspect of ‘life’ under art 21 will be violated if statelessness is permitted. Thirdly, as courts should adopt a harmonious interpretation of the Constitution with international norms. ‘Life’ under art 21 is understood as dignified life. Citizenship accords human beings with the ability to have full and dignified lives. This means that unless art 21 includes an obligation on the state not to render persons stateless, state action can render persons stateless and keep them away from enjoying a dignified life. If ‘life’ under art 21 is not interpreted to include this obligation, a group of secondclass human beings may be created who are not entitled to the dignified life that is assured to all persons. This means that ‘life’ under art 21 or dignified life includes the right to nationality to the extent that state action shall not render persons stateless. This means that any state action that causes statelessness is in violation of a constitutional obligation arising from a fundamental right. Does this interpretation mean that all stateless persons within the Indian territory should be given Indian citizenship so as to guarantee them a dignified life? Such an implication does not deviate from existing Indian case law on the point. Where courts have found persons stateless within Indian territory, they have directed the government to consider their citizenship applications based on existing citizenship law. 107 In cases where statelessness is a possibility, courts have either recognised their citizenship so they do not become stateless or offered 104 Francis Coralie (n 78) [6]. 105 Soli J Sorabjee, ‘Expansion and Protection of Fundamental Rights by Judicial Interpretation and Intervention’ (2014) 7(1) NUJS Law Review 1, 5. 106 ibid 7–8. The ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ of the Constitution are a set of non- justiciable obligations of the state to be considered by the state when enacting laws or developing policies. See also Chandrima Das (n 80) [19], [24]; NALSA (n 86) [102]–[103]; Shatrughan Chauhan v Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India) [48]; Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (n 83) [30]. 107 NHRC (n 69) [21]; P Ulaganathan (n 71) [18]. 200