50. As noted above, this prohibition extends not only to acts of non-voluntary loss or deprivation of nationality but to denial or preclusion from access to nationality. 83 As the Human Rights Council and the U. N. Secretary General have contended, while states maintain some discretion with regards to who may acquire the nationality of the state, ‘in order not to be arbitrary, denial of access to a nationality must be in conformity with domestic law and standards of international law, in particular the principle of proportionality.’ 84 51. This need for proportionality is one of the three key components of the minimum content of a non-arbitrary act of deprivation or denial, with the legitimacy of the purpose of the law and its non-discriminatory nature the other key requirements. 85 For a purpose to be legitimate it must not only align with domestic law but further be consistent with international law and the aims and objectives of international human rights law. 86 Proportionality requires the law to be the least intrusive means of achieving this legitimate aim and to be proportionate to the interest protected by the law. 87 52. The CAA in its function precludes certain groups from the acquisition of nationality, both in its limitation of exemptions to individuals from certain faiths and nations but further through the imposition of the 31st of December 2014 cut-off date. For this preclusion not to be arbitrary it must be legitimate in its purpose, proportional to this aim and nondiscriminatory. Legitimate Purpose? 53. The question of proportionality and discrimination in relation to the differential treatment of different religious and national groups is discussed in the previous section. 54. Regarding the implementation of the 31st of December 2014 cut-off date, in the Report of the Joint Committee on the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2016, published in January 2019, the Ministry of Home Affairs stated that the choice of the cut-off date in each of the rules, orders and Bills outlined above, ‘has been decided for determining eligibility to prevent the possibility of vested interests in the neighbouring countries taking advantage of this provision for further influx into India.’ 88 55. As stated above, for a purpose to be legitimate (as a requisite component of nonarbitrariness) it must be ‘consistent with international law and, in particular, the objectives of international human rights law.’ 89 However the implementation of the cut-off date and the aim to prevent further influx of those seeking asylum into the country seems to 83 See Human Rights Council 2009 (n 40) [23], [29]; Human Rights Council 2013 (n 40) [2]; UNHCR, Guidelines No 5 (n 40) [9], [91]; Institute of Statelessness and Inclusion, Principles on Deprivation of Nationality as a National Security Measure (Report, 2020) [2.2.1]. 84 Human Rights Council 2009 (n 40) [29]. The prohibition on arbitrary deprivation of nationality and the principle of non-discrimination are seen to be some of the few restrictions set on the prerogative of States to deny or deprive individuals of nationality which in itself is ‘a corollary to the scarcely limited freedom of States with regard to their nationality laws’ see Max Plank Encyclopedia of International Law (n 40) [32]. 85 Human Rights Council 2009 (n 40) [25]; Human Rights Council 2013 (n 40) [4]; UHCR, Guidelines No 5 (n 40) [91]. 86 Human Rights Council 2009 (n 40) [25]. 87 Ibid. 88 Report of the Joint Committee on the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2016 (n 80) 67 [5.13]. 89 Human Rights Council 2009 (n 40) [25]. 17