It is not the citizen's responsibility to prove he is a citizen, it is the government's responsibility to prove that he isn't.
Guilty until proven innocent? How is that fair?
Guilty until proven innocent? How is that fair?
> Guilty until proven innocent? How is that fair?
By this rationale, couldn't one claim citizenship to any country? When I arrive at a foreign border I don't say, "Allow me entry, I am a citizen, prove otherwise."
I understand that further from the border this encroachment is less justified, but still I don't think citizenship is granted until proven otherwise.
We didn't arrive at the border today, we were born here, and now we are being asked to stand in line to submit documentary proofs of not only ours but of our parents and grandparents.
But if you're talking of your specific case, were your parents and/or grandparents born here or did they come to India after 1947?
The single point of controversy is whether the Citizenship Amendment Act can omit a refugee on the basis of religion. The supreme court can issue a ruling on this and end the matter.
If you have a specific reason to suspect and investigate an individual, that's a different matter.
That's not a requirement in this case.
People simply living in their hometown don’t have a choice.
India follows jus sanguinis (citizenship by right of blood) as opposed to the jus soli (citizenship by right of birth within the territory). The state cannot just assume that a person has the Right of blood.