Sir, this article on the question of citizenship has been the most ill-fated article in the whole Constitution. This is the third time we are debating it. The first time it was you, Sir, who held the view which was upheld by the House that the definition was very unsatisfactory. It was then referred to a group of lawyers and I am sorry to say that they produced a definition by which all those, persons who are in existence at the present time could not be included as Citizens of India. That had therefore to go back again and we have now a fresh definition which I may say at the very outset, is as unsatisfactory as the one which the House rejected and I will give very cogent reasons for that view of mine. But if it is necessary that I should move my amendment before I do so, I am prepared to do it. I would, therefore, like to move amendment 164 which is the same as amendment 2 in List III of Second Week. Sir, I move:
“That in amendment No. 1 of List I (Second Week) of Amendments to Amendments, for the proposed article 5, the following be substituted:-
‘5. (i) Every person residing in India–
(a) who is born of Indian parents; or
(b) who is naturalised under the law of naturalisation; and
(ii) every person who is a Hindu or a Sikh by religion and is not a citizen of any other State, wherever he residesshall be entitled to be a citizen of India.‘”