Legislative Authority versus Original Constitutional Text

Only the third statement is accurate. Article 8 of the Constitution explicitly deals with the citizenship of persons of Indian origin residing outside India (whose parents/grandparents were born in undivided India). The first statement is false because the termination of citizenship for fraud is a statutory provision located in the Citizenship Act of 1955, not the original Constitution. The second statement is false because the Constitution (Article 11) empowers the Parliament, not the President, to legislate citizenship matters.

The Assertion is true; the Constitution itself cannot be cited to revoke fraudulent citizenship. Reason 1 correctly supports this by noting that termination protocols are absent from the original text and rely on parliamentary statutes (the 1955 Act). Reason 2 is completely false; Article 11 specifically *grants* Parliament the supreme authority to govern civic membership, rather than stripping it.

The third counter is sound. The lawyer is technically correct that the *original Constitution* lacks a fraud termination clause. However, the government will counter by citing Article 11, which granted Parliament the power to regulate citizenship. Parliament subsequently passed the Citizenship Act of 1955, which contains the exact legal mechanism required to strip an individual of citizenship acquired by fraud.

Only the third claim is valid (Article 8 accommodates overseas diaspora). Statement 1 is false (fraud termination is in the 1955 Act, not the Constitution). Statement 2 is false (Parliament, not the President, is the supreme authority under Article 11).