2021 STATELESSNESS AND THE CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 183 confers citizenship on the simple fact of birth on a territory.187 In contrast, jus sanguinis may exclude persons born in or residing in the territory of a state who lack shared ethnic characteristics or fail to draw their lineage from that state.188 In this way, persons ineligible for want of ethnic features or lineage in States following jus sanguinis are unable to claim citizenship in such States.189 Alternatively, if States transition from jus soli to jus sanguinis, persons initially eligible for citizenship under jus soli may lose their citizenship under jus sanguinis.190 Further, persons rendered stateless under such jus sanguinis law will reproduce statelessness for their descendants, creating ‘multigenerational statelessness’.191 Thus, jus sanguinis citizenship has a powerful potential to exacerbate statelessness. Indian citizenship is experiencing all of these phenomena – the law is shedding jus soli character in favour of jus sanguinis as evinced by the amendments of 2004, 2015 and 2019.192 As a result, children of parents who are stateless or doubtful citizens have been rendered stateless will probably pass on their lack of citizenship to the next generation, creating multigenerational statelessness. Further, refugees and stateless persons who are not exempt from being categorised as illegal migrants under the 2019 Act will continue to live without citizenship.193 India’s Constituent Assembly was cognisant of the pitfalls of jus sanguinis as well, and intentionally eschewed jus sanguinis in favour of jus soli,194 hop187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 Fitzgerald (n 32); Waas (n 39). Weissbrodt (n 186). Weissbrodt (n 186); Carol Batchelor, ‘Statelessness and the Problem of Resolving Nationality Status’ [1998] 10 International Journal of Refugee Law 156. Jayal (n 34); Shachar (n 35); Lee (n 37); Batchelor (n 189). Kakarala and others (n 8). Jayal (n 34); as in Part III (a). Kakarala and others (n 8); Jayal (n 22); Jayal (n 34), Rahman (n 118); Soumya Shankar, ‘India’s citizenship law, in tandem with national registry, could make BJP’s discriminatory targeting of Muslims easier’ (The Intercept, 30 January 2020) <https://theintercept. com/2020/01/30/india-citizenship-act-caa-nrc-assam/> accessed 28 July 2021. Jayal (n 23); Jayal (n 27); Bhatia (n 51); Roy (n 122); Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Constituent Assembly Debates Volume III p 3.18.158, p 3.18.183 (29 April 1947) <https://www.constitutionofindia.net/constitution_assembly_debates/volume/3/1947-04-29> accessed 28 July 2021; K. Santhanam, Constituent Assembly Debates Volume VII p 7.50.30 (6 November 1948) <https://www.constitutionofindia.net/constitution_ assembly_debates/volume/7/1948-11-06> Jawaharlal Nehru and Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar, Constituent Assembly Debates Volume IX p 9.117.34, p 9.117.47 (12 August 1949) <https:// www.constitutionofindia.net/constitution_assembly_debates/volume/9/1949-08-12> accessed 28 July 2021; Ajit Prasad Jain, Constituent Assembly Debates Volume XI p 11.162.164 (22 November 1949) <https://www.constitutionofindia.net/constitution_assembly_debates/ volume/11/1949-11-22> accessed 28 July 2021; Kamaleshwari Prasad Yadav, Constituent Assembly Debates Volume XI p 11.165.295 (25 November 1949) <https://www.constitutionofindia.net/constitution_assembly_debates/volume/11/1949-11-25> accessed 28 July 2021; Joya Chatterjee, ‘South Asian Histories of Citizenship, 1946-1970’ [2012] 4 The Historical Journal 55.