countries. Some of them also have fears about such persecution in their day-to-day life where right to practice, profess and propagate their religion has been obstructed and restricted. Many such persons have fled to India to seek shelter and continued to stay in India even if their travel documents have expired or they have incomplete or no documents… The illegal migrants who have entered into India up to the cut-off date of 31.12.2014 need a special regime to govern their citizenship matters. 50 33. The legitimate aim of the CAA is therefore purported to be to (1) recognise the special needs of certain persecuted persons/refugees who have sought protection in India and (2) to respond to their predicament by facilitating their naturalization so that they may fully integrate into Indian society. The word ‘refugee’ is not explicitly invoked in the Statement of Objects, but it is referenced repeatedly in the Counter Affidavit and, in any event, persecution is a central refugee concept. 34. However, the difficulty with stating refugee protection as the objective is that the law does not define those who are eligible for naturalization by reference to their refugee status: it is silent on concepts of persecution or refugeehood. All of these matters are mentioned only in the statement of objects and counter affidavit. 35. Although India hosts a large number of refugees 51, is a member of the UNHCR Executive Committee and permits the presence of the UNHCR, India is not a party to the Refugee Convention nor does it have a domestic procedure in place for determining refugee status. Hence there is no pre-existing lawful basis on which matters such as ‘persecution on grounds of religion’, ‘persecution in their day to day life’ or motivations for seeking ‘shelter’ in India can be objectively determined. 52 In other words, there is no requirement for a person to establish any of these matters in order to seek naturalization under the amendments. 36. If these matters are not part of the test, then there is surely doubt cast on the argument that the law can fairly be described as having the objective of protecting persecuted populations. How can the law be said to be about refugee protection if refugeehood is wholly irrelevant to qualification for the law’s benefits? The only prerequisites to naturalization under these provisions are religion and country of origin; not protection needs. 37. If India was a party to the Refugee Convention, it might be arguable that compliance with this international treaty could constitute a legitimate objective, in this case the Refugee 50 Statement of Objects (n 44) [2], [5]. See also Counter Affidavit (n 23) [20]-[21]. UNHCR, ‘Fact Sheet: India’ (31 January 2020) <https://reporting.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/UNHCR%20India%20factsheet%20-%20January%202020.pdf>: India hosts 244,094 refugees and asylum seekers. Of these there are 108,005 from Tibet and 95,230 from Sri Lanka (these figures and populations are registered and managed by the Government of India. There are additionally 21,049 from Myanmar, 16,333 from Afghanistan and 3,477 from ‘other’ countries that are registered with the UNHCR. 52 Statement of Objects (n 44) [2]. Note that UNHCR conducts RSD yet there is no domestic procedure on domestic legal status that flows from protection against refoulement. 51 11