currently reside in India, where they face protection gaps and/or risk of deportation (see Issue III). The exclusion of Muslims in general places Muslim migrants and refugees at greater risk of statelessness. 15. These amendments to India’s citizenship provisions also render Muslims more vulnerable to citizenship deprivation when considered alongside the NRC process in Assam (see Issue I). Hindus identified as foreigners by the Foreigners Tribunals can claim exception from prosecution under the Foreigners (Exemption) Order of 2015 and are offered a path back to citizenship via these amendments. In successive cases before the Gauhati High Court, Hindu litigants have successfully claimed protection of these orders and obtained court directions permitting them to apply for citizenship. 14 Conversely, no such avenue is available to Muslims designated as foreigners. Moreover, while both Hindu and Muslim Bengalis in Assam - often framed as ’infiltrators - are confronted with xenophobic rhetoric and hate speech, Muslims are particularly vulnerable, reflective of wider and rising anti-Muslim sentiment across India. ISSUE I Citizenship determination and deprivation in Assam 16. Under international law, states have traditionally had broad discretion in the regulation of nationality matters. This is not, however, an absolute discretion, and has been gradually limited by the evolution of human rights law. While states have relatively greater discretion in relation to setting rules and criteria for the acquisition of citizenship (subject to some limitations), a number of international standards and principles must be adhered to in relation to deprivation of citizenship.15 17. The Principles on Deprivation of Nationality as a National Security Measure,16 provide important guidance on the question of deprivation of nationality. The Principles restate or reflect international law and legal standards under the UN Charter, treaty law, customary international law, general principles of law, judicial decisions and legal scholarship, regional and national law and practice.17 18. According to the analysis of international law standards presented in the Principles, state discretion in relation to deprivation of nationality is subject to the individual right 14 See Bablu Paul@Sujit Paul v Union of India and Ors, WP(C)/7229/2017; Mangla Das v Union of India and Ors, Review.Pet./73/2021 15 See Paras 7 & 8 of the Commentary to the Principles on Deprivation of Nationality as a National Security Measure, available at: https://files.institutesi.org/Principles_COMMENTARY.pdf. 16 Principles on Deprivation of Nationality as a National Security Measure, March 2020. Available at: https://files.institutesi.org/PRINCIPLES.pdf. The Principles were developed over a 30-month research and consultation period, with input from more than 60 leading experts in the fields of human rights, nationality and statelessness, counter-terrorism, refugee protection, child rights, migration and other related areas, in a process facilitated by ISI in collaboration with the Open Society Justice Initiative and with support from the Asser Institute and Ashurst LLP. At the time of submission, they have been endorsed by over 110 individual experts and organisations, including leading academics, UN Special Rapporteurs and Treaty Body members, litigators, judges, parliamentarians and diplomats. 17 A detailed Commentary to the Principles provides an in-depth analysis and overview of the international law norms and standards, which underlie the Principles. This Commentary can be found here: https://files.institutesi.org/Principles_COMMENTARY.pdf. 5