Subscribe Now! Get features like
A day after the Union government issued the rules for the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, or CAA, the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) moved the Supreme Court on Tuesday demanding that the impugned statute and regulations be stayed, and that no coercive steps be taken against persons belonging to Muslim community who have been deprived of the benefit of this law.
IUML is one of the petitioners that have challenged the validity of the amendments and Section 6B in the Act which aim at granting fast-track citizenship to non-Muslim refugees who came to India on or before December 31, 2014, because of religious persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.
The application by the Kerala-based political party claimed that the CAA Rules notified on Monday evening creates a “highly truncated and fast-tracked process” for the grant of citizenships to non-Muslim migrants from the specified countries, thereby making operational a “manifestly arbitrary and discriminatory” regime solely on the ground of religious identity.
“Since the CAA is discriminates on the basis of religion, it strikes at the root of secularism, which is the basic structure of the Constitution… India’s constitutional framework, read with obligations under the international law, mandates a framework of refugee protection that is non-discriminatory,” stated the plea, filed through advocate Pallavi Pratap.
Also Read: CAA notified: Rules for the new citizenship law draws Opposition parties’ ire
It pointed out that waiting for the final judgment of the top court would not hamper anyone’s interest as the Centre itself has taken more than four years to notify the rules after the amendments received the presidential assent in December 2019.
“If this court finally decided that CAA is unconstitutional, people who would have received the citizenship under this Act will have to be stripped of their citizenships. Therefore, it is in the best interest of everyone to defer the implementation of CAA and impugned rules till this hon’ble court finally decides the matter,” IUML pleaded.
The party urged the court to stay the implementation of CAA and the Rules, adding that until the court decides, persons belonging to Muslim community may not be subjected to any coercive action under the Citizenship Act, Passport Act or Foreigners Act. IUML has also approached the registrar concerned to seek an urgent hearing of its plea.
For over a year now, the Supreme Court has not held an effective hearing in this matter.
Four years after the controversial law was passed to fast-track citizenship to non-Muslims who entered India from the three neighbouring countries on or before December 31, 2014, the Centre on Monday notified the rules, entailing the architecture granting citizenship through certificates of registration and naturalisation.
Announcing the notification, which was expected after several ministers and officials over the past few months said that the rules would be released before this summer’s general elections, Union home minister Amit Shah said on X, “The Modi government notified the Citizenship (amendment) rules, 2024. These rules will now enable minorities persecuted on religious grounds in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan to acquire citizenship in our nation… With this notification, PM Shri @narendramodi Ji has delivered on another commitment and realised the promise of the makers of our Constitution to the Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians living in those countries.”
The announcement of the rules, in keeping with the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) promise in its 2019 manifesto, was criticised by Opposition parties who said the timing of the notification is linked to the coming elections.
The law itself was passed in December 2019, but the underlying rules were not framed. Its passage resulted in protests, which petered out only with the Covid-19 pandemic, and a clutch of petitions that remain before the Supreme Court.
West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee said she would oppose CAA if it curtailed Indian citizens’ existing rights in any manner.
A clutch of over two hundred connected petitions, filed in the top court since 2019, have challenged various CAA provisions which aim at granting fast-track citizenship to non-Muslim refugees who came to India because of religious persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan on or before December 31, 2014. The law has been questioned on grounds of religious discrimination against Muslims and arbitrariness.
The petitioners challenging the validity of the law include Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, the Indian Union Muslim League, and its MPs, Lok Sabha MP and AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi, RJD leader Manoj Jha, TMC MP Mahua Moitra, All Assam Students’ Union and Tripura royal scion Pradyot Kishore Deb Barman.
Responding to these petitions, the Centre’s latest affidavit in October 2022 stated that the legality of the CAA may not be within the scope of judicial review since matters of citizenship and foreign policy fall squarely within the domain of Parliament. The government asserted that issues concerning the sovereign plenary power of parliament, especially regarding citizenship, cannot be questioned by filing PILs.
According to the affidavit filed through the Union ministry of home affairs, the power of exclusion of immigrants is an incident of sovereignty belonging to a duly constituted nation-state and immigration policy. The policy, it added, impacts the foreign policy of a State and by extension, affects its security apparatus and would fall squarely within parliament’s domain.
“In matter concerning immigration policy and citizenship in particular, it is the executive policy of the sovereign manifested by competent legislation, which would govern the decision-making. It is submitted that the legislative policies in this regard are designedly entrusted exclusively to elected representatives (to be carried out as per the procedure of legislation established by law),” said the government.
The 2022 affidavit also sought to allay the apprehensions that CAA would incentivise influx of illegal migrants, pointing out the migrants who are entitled to citizenship under the law are already living in various parts of India.
The MHA emphasised in its 2022 affidavit that the presence of inhabitants of the classified communities – Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians — from the three neighbouring countries does not amount to “external aggression” or “internal disturbance” and therefore, does not violate Article 355 of the Constitution.
Article 355 obligates the Centre to protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the government of every state is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
“The future grant of citizenship rights to persons of these prosecuted minority communities will not compromise the political rights of the existing citizens of India… CAA does not impinge upon any existing right that may have existed prior to the enactment of the amendment and further, in no manner whatsoever, seeks to affect the legal, democratic or secular rights of any of the Indian citizens,” underscored this affidavit.
Indian Union Muslim League moves SC seeking stay of CAA Rules – Hindustan Times
Leave a comment