Policy Brief Policy Center for the New South democratic form of government; (3) secular character of the Constitution; (4) separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary; (5) federal character of the Constitution. The Indian Constitution does not uphold any religious text; all individuals are entitled to freedom of religion, and particular religious beliefs are not prerequisites to holding official positions. Thus, by assigning automatic disqualification on the basis of religion, the CAA denies socio-economic and political justice, which is inscribed in the preamble of the Constitution. It also goes against the freedom of faith and worship which is incorporated in the preamble. The Violation of Indian Engagements Under International Law The CAA raises a range of concerns when it comes to international human rights law. These can be broadly categorized into norms which directly relate to the right to nationality, and norms which relate to humanrights violations which are taking place and are likely to continue to unfold as a result of the arbitrary deprivation of legal protection based on religious convictions. Below is a non-exhaustive look at some of the key standards and norms. A. The Right to Nationality The main human rights under threat as a result of the CAB are the rights to nationality. It is important to note that states are free to regulate the acquisition and loss of nationality, within the limits set by international law. In addition to recognizing the right to nationality, international law explicitly prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of nationality: these norms can be found in many international conventions. For example, the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (Article 9) prohibits deprivation of nationality of a person or group on racial, ethnic religious or political grounds. This Convention also restricts the freedom of states to deprive a person of his or her nationality where this results in statelessness, allowing only for specified exceptions (Articles 7 and 8), which include the possibility for a state to retain the power to deprive a person of his or her nationality where: “inconsistency with his duty of loyalty to the contracting states, the person…has conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital www.policycenter.ma interests of the State”. The Convention also states that the deprivation of nationality must always be in accordance with the law and allow for the right to a fair hearing. On a similar note, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 8) and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances (Article 25.4) each recognize the right of every child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, and to have this re-established if it is illegally removed. Article 6 of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness protects children and spouses from deprivation of nationality as a consequence of the loss of citizenship of the father or husband, in order to protect them from becoming stateless. In 1996, the UN General Assembly with the approval of India, recognized the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of nationality as a fundamental principle of international law. From 1997 onwards, resolutions on human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality have been adopted periodically by the Commission of Human Rights and subsequently the Human Rights Council and have also been recognized by the authorities in New Delhi. These resolutions have formed the basis for a number of studies by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretary-General11. A report published in December 2009 offers a helpful overview of the legal framework applicable to the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of nationality: “While the question of arbitrary deprivation of nationality does not comprise the loss of nationality voluntarily requested by the individual, it covers all other forms of loss nationality, including those that preclude a person from obtaining or retaining a nationality, particularly on discriminatory grounds, as well as those that deprive a person of a nationality by operation of the law, and those acts taken by administrative authorities that result in a person being arbitrarily deprived of a nationality12”. The report also recalls important elements in the interpretation of the concept of arbitrariness, a term that “applies to all state action, legislative, administrative and judicial, and guarantees that even interference provided for by law should be in accordance with the provisions, aims and objectives of human rights law and should, in any event, be reasonable in the particular circumstances13”. 11. UNHRC. Report of the Secretary-General, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality. A/HRC/13/34. December 14, 2009. https:// www.refworld.org/pdfid/4b83a9cb2.pdf 12. Ibid. Paragraph 23. 13. Ibid. Paragraph 24 4