Article 10 of the Indian Constitution
When India adopted its Constitution in 1950, it laid down a framework not just for governance but also for defining who a citizen is and what rights such a citizen holds. Among the many provisions concerning citizenship, Article 10 has a special place because it ensures that once a person is recognised as a citizen (or “deemed to be” a citizen) under the Constitution’s initial rules, that person continues to remain a citizen, subject to laws that Parliament may pass.
In other words, Article 10 provides continuity and certainty to citizenship status. The idea is simple: the framers wanted to make sure that people who were citizens at the start of the Constitution would not suddenly lose that status without due legal process.
Yet, Article 10 is not unconditional—it explicitly allows Parliament to legislate on citizenship matters, including acquisition and termination. In this post, we will explore the context, text, interpretations, importance, limitations, criticisms, and judicial pronouncements around Article 10, all in straightforward language so that the essence and implications are clear to everyone.
Constitutional Context and Background of Article 10
Before explaining Article 10 itself, it helps to see where it comes in the Constitution’s scheme. The Constitution’s Part II is devoted to Citizenship. The earlier Articles (5 to 9) set out who would be citizens at the commencement of the Constitution, how people migrating from Pakistan or abroad could be citizens, and how some people may lose citizenship.
Those who were “deemed to be citizens” under those provisions are covered. Article 10 then states that such persons shall continue to be citizens, subject to future laws by Parliament. In this way, Article 10 acts as a bridge between the initial definition of citizenship and later legislation on citizenship. When the Draft Constitution was being framed, the framers believed it was necessary to insert Article 10 to avoid any abrupt disruption of citizenship status, especially because citizenship in the immediate wake of partition and migration was a delicate issue.
The inclusion of Article 10 was debated in August 1949 and accepted as a necessary safeguard. Thus, Article 10 stands as a constitutional protection ensuring stability in citizenship rights as India moved from colonial to independent rule.
Text and Meaning of Article 10
The exact wording of Article 10 is:
“Every person who is or is deemed to be a citizen of India under any of the foregoing provisions of this Part shall, subject to the provisions of any law that may be made by Parliament, continue to be such citizen.”
Now, to understand this in simple terms:
-
The phrase “who is or is deemed to be a citizen” refers to people who become citizens under the previous Articles (5–9) or under rules made by the Constitution.
-
The words “shall … continue to be such citizen” mean that their citizenship status is not lost by default once recognized; they keep it.
-
The qualification “subject to the provisions of any law that may be made by Parliament” means that Parliament has the authority to make or change laws relating to citizenship—including termination or modification of rights.
In effect, Article 10 gives constitutional backing to citizenship status established at the commencement or under the nearer Articles, but ensures it is still compatible with parliamentary sovereignty in defining citizenship rules.
Significance and Purpose of Article 10
Article 10 is not a long article, but its importance is substantial. Its key purpose is legal certainty and protection. Without it, people who were citizens by virtue of the Constitution’s opening clauses might have risked losing citizenship without due legal process. By ensuring that citizenship continues unless altered by law, Article 10 offers a measure of protection against arbitrary removal of citizenship. Secondly, it reflects the balancing act between constitutional protection and legislative power. While the Constitution grants rights and recognitions, it also respects the role of Parliament to regulate citizenship through ordinary laws. Thirdly, Article 10 plays a stabilising role in the post-Independence period, especially in relation to migration, partition, and movement of people. At a time when many people were displaced, the framers recognized the need to protect those recognized as citizens from confusion or loss of status. Lastly, Article 10 helps tie the constitutional definitions (Articles 5–9) of citizenship into the ongoing legal framework under the Citizenship Act and subsequent laws, by ensuring a smooth transition from constitutional entitlement to statutory regulation.
Relationship with Articles 5–9 and Article 11
Article 10 does not stand alone. It must be read together with the rest of Part II of the Constitution. Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 lay down who would become citizens at the commencement, how people migrating across borders could qualify, and how voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship might disqualify one from Indian citizenship. These Articles essentially set the initial rules: who becomes citizen by birth, descent, migration, etc. Then Article 10 ensures that once those rules declare someone a citizen, that status continues. After that, Article 11 gives Parliament the explicit power to regulate by law the right of citizenship—granting it broader authority to define acquisition and termination of citizenship beyond what the Constitution initially states. So, Article 10 and Article 11 together create a constitutional scheme: the Constitution defines initial citizenship rights, then Article 10 protects continuity, and Article 11 allows Parliament to regulate or change rules by legislation. Because of this, later statutes like the Citizenship Act, 1955, must operate within this framework—but also can override or shape rules so long as they are consistent with constitutional principles.
Effects of Article 10 in Practice
Because of Article 10, all persons who were citizens (or deemed citizens) at the start of the Constitution remain citizens unless Parliament enacts a law to remove or change that status. This means such persons do not need to go through a fresh procedure to prove citizenship or lose it automatically by virtue of constitutional change. In practice, Article 10 gives security: a person cannot be stripped of citizenship by an executive decision not backed by law. If Parliament enacts a law that changes citizenship rules—for example, disqualifies people of certain categories or revokes citizenship in certain circumstances—then that law must follow due procedure, and its validity can be challenged in court if it violates constitutional principles. Article 10 also ensures that rights tied to citizenship—like voting, holding office, contesting elections, participating in public service—are not abruptly disrupted for existing citizens simply by a change of policy or statute.
Limits and Parliamentary Supremacy
Though Article 10 provides continuity, it does not place citizenship beyond legal regulation. The clause “subject to the provisions of any law that may be made by Parliament” is crucial. It means that Parliament can pass laws defining how citizenship can be lost (for instance through renunciation, deprivation, or termination), or how new citizenship can be acquired (naturalisation, by registration, etc.). If Parliament enacts such a law, it can alter or extinguish citizenship rights as allowed by the statute. But that law must conform to constitutional safeguards—for example, it must respect due process, non-arbitrariness, equality, and so on. If a citizenship law is unfair, discriminatory, or violates fundamental rights, courts may strike it down or read it narrowly. Thus, while Article 10 promises continuity, it also concedes that citizenship status may be regulated through proper legislation.
Judicial Interpretation and Key Cases
The Indian judiciary, including the Supreme Court, has had cause to interpret Article 10, especially when persons challenged removal or denial of citizenship under various laws. Courts have emphasised that Article 10 protects constitutional citizenship status and that any law depriving citizenship must be tested against constitutional standards. In cases where individuals are deprived of citizenship by law, courts have examined whether procedural safeguards, fairness, and reasonableness were observed. The judiciary has held that Article 10 does not guarantee absolute immunity from deprivation, but it erects a barrier against arbitrary and unbridled legislative action.
One doctrine courts have applied is that even though Parliament has power to legislate under Article 11, it cannot violate the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution. If a citizenship law treats similarly situated persons disparately without adequate reason, courts may hold it unconstitutional. Another approach is the principle of proportionality — that limitations on citizenship must be appropriately tailored and not excessive in relation to the public interest. Courts have also held that fundamental rights (such as equality before law) constrain citizenship legislation, so Parliament’s powers are not unlimited in this regard.
Criticisms and Challenges
Although Article 10 is protective, it has also drawn criticism and faced practical challenges. One criticism is its wording is somewhat formal and vague—it does not define precisely under what conditions Parliament may deprive someone of citizenship, leaving wide discretion to statutory law. This opens potential for abuse if laws are framed harshly or without regard to fairness. Another criticism is that in real life, citizenship law can be complex and bureaucratic, and citizens may find themselves in limbo or challenged by administrative processes, despite Article 10’s assurance. Moreover, in times of national security or political shifts, citizenship laws may be used to exclude or disenfranchise groups, raising concerns about majoritarian misuse. Further, Article 10 only protects those who are already citizens at the commencement or “deemed” so; it does not guarantee future or new citizens the same degree of protection beyond what Parliament allows. Finally, some argue that Article 10’s balance in giving power to Parliament could have been stronger in guaranteeing substantive protections rather than deferring to statutory power.
Hypothetical Examples to Illustrate Article 10’s Operation
To better grasp how Article 10 works, consider these simplified examples:
Suppose Mr. A was recognised as a citizen under Article 5 when the Constitution came into force. Even years later, no one can declare him non-citizen just by rewriting rules. He continues as a citizen until Parliament enacts a proper law stating conditions for termination, and such law is scrutinised under constitutional norms.
Imagine Ms. B was deemed a citizen under Article 8 (overseas Indians registering). Later Parliament enacts a law that says such persons may lose citizenship if they reside outside India beyond a period. That law may validly operate, so long as it follows due process and does not arbitrarily target Ms. B without justification.
If Parliament passes a law depriving all citizens of a particular religion of citizenship, that would almost certainly be struck down as violating equality and other constitutional guarantees. Article 10 would be invoked to argue that citizenship status cannot be arbitrarily removed without valid law and procedural safeguards.
Relevance in Modern Times: Citizenship Debates
In recent decades, debates about citizenship, nationality laws, refugees, stateless persons, and identity verification have grown intense. Article 10 remains relevant as a constitutional anchor in these debates. When the state enacts citizenship amendments or laws such as deprivation clauses or re-registration rules, courts must interpret them against Article 10’s guarantee of continuity. In cases of contested citizenship lists, border-migrants, or revoked citizenship, petitioners may invoke Article 10 to assert that any removal must be backed by law and fair procedure. In contexts of security, terrorism, or national threat, governments may try to exclude or strip citizenship from certain classes; Article 10 acts as a constraint, requiring robust justification. Also, as migration increases globally, questions of dual citizenship, overseas Indian status, long-term residents may lead to legal challenges invoking Article 10.
Strengths, Weaknesses, and Possible Reforms
Article 10’s greatest strength is that it offers constitutional guarantee to those who already stand as citizens, reducing fear of arbitrary revocation. It supports legal stability and trust in citizenship status. It also sets up a framework in which citizenship laws must be subject to constitutional review, thereby protecting citizens’ rights.
However, its main weakness is that it doesn’t itself lay down procedural or substantive criteria for deprivation; it depends heavily on Parliament’s laws. Thus, if citizenship legislation is badly drafted or misused, the protection is only as good as courts’ resistance. Also, because new citizens or future generations may not enjoy the same “continuance” guarantee, gaps may arise.
Possible reforms might include adding clarity in constitutional law about minimum procedural standards for citizenship deprivation (such as hearing, appeals, non-discrimination) or limiting Parliament’s power in certain core citizenship rights. Another reform could be stronger constitutional protection for every citizen (not only those existing at commencement) that any future law altering citizenship must meet high standards. Some scholars suggest an amendment to make citizenship legislation directly subject to explicit constitutional safeguards so that Article 10’s protection is deeper.
Conclusion
Though concise, Article 10 of the Indian Constitution carries a vital promise: that people recognised as citizens at the start—or deemed so—will not lose that status merely by constitutional transition or administrative whim. It ensures continuity, legal security, and protects citizenship identity. But it is not absolute; Parliament retains power to enact laws about acquisition and termination of citizenship, provided those laws respect constitutional principles. Over time, courts have interpreted Article 10 as a shield against arbitrary deprivation, enforcing that citizenship laws must be fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory. In contemporary times, with migration, identity conflicts, and citizenship controversies, Article 10 remains a constitutional anchor. Yet, for its protection to be robust, the legal system must fill in procedural and substantive standards and guard against abuse. Ultimately, Article 10 embodies the framers’ intention to secure for citizens a stable identity in the new republic while leaving space for democratic regulation and change.
COMMENTS