No stay on CAA without hearing the Centre: SC

DIRECTIVE TO HCS High courts should not take up cases on CAA, orders apex court The matter is uppermost in everybody’s mind. We will form a five-judge bench and then list the case — Supreme Court

NEWDELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted four weeks’ time to the Centre to reply to the 144-odd petitions challenging the contentious Ci t i z e n s h i p (Amendment) Act or CAA.

While most of the petitions challenge the constitutional validity of CAA, some of them seek a declaration that the act is constitutional.

The apex court also ordered that high courts should not take up cases on CAA.

As the hearing began, Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, told the bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sharad Arvind Bobde that there are 140-odd petitions but only 60 petitions have been served on Union. He sought time to reply to the rest of them.

Lawyer Kapil Sibal, representing a group of petitioners, said that matter should be heard by a Constitution bench. The Supreme Court is likely to send the matter to a constitution bench.

Sibal further said that the National Population (NPR) exer

FOUR WEEKS’ TIME The Supreme Court on Wednesday gave the government four weeks to respond to petitions challenging the CAA

NOTICE TO THE CENTRE

The top court issued notice to the Centre and restrained all high courts from hearing pleas on the CAA till it decides on the pleas cise is scheduled for April and should be postponed through an interim order of the court. Fellow lawyer and Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who is also representing the petitioners, also demanded a stay saying, “If the process could wait for 70 years, can it not wait for two more months?”

SEPARATE HEARING The bench said it will hear the petitions pertaining to Assam and Tripura separately as the problem with the CAA there is different CONSTITUTION BENCH When senior advocate Kapil Sibal said the issue be referred to a Constitution bench, the bench said, “Even we think that the matter should be heard by a Constitution bench.”

But Venugopal opposed it saying there should be no interim order without hearing the Centre. The Centre’s top law officer said that seeking the postponement of implementation of the act is the same as seeking a stay of the same. CJI Bobde agreed and said it won’t grant any stay without hearing Centre.

The petitions first came up for a hearing before the top court on December 18, 2019 when the court issued notice to the central government and Venugopal. Only 60-odd petitions had been filed by then.

The Centre had subsequently filed a transfer petition seeking transfer of Caa-related cases from high courts to the Supreme Court.

The change in the citizenship law, which was passed by Parliament on December 12, 2019, amends Section 2 of the Citizenship Act, which defines “illegal migrants”. In this definition, Parliament added a provision that excluded people belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, from being counted as undocumented migrants. The only condition was that such people should have entered the country before 31 December 2014.

The exclusion of Muslim community from this special dispensation has led to widespread protests across the country. Critics say this is the first time that a law