Citizenship and the judicial intervention: comparative study in India and USA*

Abstract

In today’s globalized world citizenship is considered as method of inclusion which acts as a status of a person,^[1] and that status brings along with it, exclusive rights and obligations. Often the concept of citizenship is generally confused with that of nationality, but nationality is associated with membership of a community on the basis of cultural similarities whereas citizenship is membership of a state.^[2]

Right of citizenship brings with it bundle of other rights,^[3] it is used as a sorting device for allocating human population to a particular state. Citizenship acts as a filter in two ways: states are obligated to admit their nationals into their territory and they may levy restrictions (e.g. visa requirements) on other nationals. Citizenship is neither a purely subjective nor purely objective criteria. It is not subjective as there is no sense of belonging and neither is it objective because it cannot be inferred by looking at the person’s circumstances. Citizenship is more of a discriminating concept than a concept that ties people. It marks a boundary between outsiders and insiders, this boundary may be flexible or rigid and may keep changing, but it still exists as a demarcation.

[1] Markus Pohlmann, Jonghoe Yang, Jong Hee Lee, 60, https://www.asia-europe.uniheidelberg.

de/fileadmin/Pictures/Publications/springer_books/transcult_pohlmann_yang_lee_978-3-642-19738-3.pdf, (last visited June 24, 2021).

[2] Ibid.

[3]Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101–02 (1958)