This article begins with the insight of citizenship theorist Niraja Gopal Jayal, who notes that citizenship is as much about relations among citizens as it is between the state and citizens. The recent amendments to India’s citizenship laws must be seen as part of the continuum of sectarian practices which have marked India’s constitutional journey. Citizenship in India took on sectarian forms right from the time of independence. Whether inscribed into law or not, an attenuated, alienating, and suspicion-marked form of citizenship experience for Muslims has always been a part of India’s public life. However, the major shift in the last decade has been the overtly partisan turn that political discourse has taken. These are not throwaway statements by fringe elements but a careful articulation of government policy by the top brass. The article aims to examine the convergence of the political and judicial discourse around citizenship. While we have often seen this convergence in judicial practice (cow protection laws, anti-conversion laws, and upholding upper caste Hindu practices to the exclusion of others), we need robust theorising about the implicit and explicit calls to protect (mainly Brahmanical Hindu) religion in judgments. The article draws inspiration from Nandini Sundar’s recent work, in which she examines how the Supreme Court, through omission, indifference, and sometimes commission, has facilitated the BJP’s majoritarian project. It proposes examining some of the most frequently cited judgments on citizenship laws in India and analysing them as pieces of rhetorical reasoning. To do that, we must be able to identify and understand how emotions are subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) a part of judgments, even as judges claim to be value-neutral. We must examine this claim of neutrality seriously.