The Hindu (Erode)

Religion introduced as condition for citizenshi­p for the first time: plea in SC

- Krishnadas Rajagopal

The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) and the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI) have on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court seeking a stay on implementa­tion of the Citizenshi­p (Amendment) Act, 2019 and its rules.

The DYFI, represente­d by advocate Biju P. Raman and Subhash Chandran KR, sought an early hearing of the case in the apex court. It argued that this was first time religion has been introduced as a reference point or condition for acquisitio­n of Indian citizenshi­p.

The IUML, represente­d by advocates Haris Beeran and Pallavi Pratap, highlighte­d how the Centre averted a push for a stay of the implementa­tion of the CAA in the Supreme Court nearly five years ago by arguing that the rules had not been framed.

Now, after fourandhal­f years, the IUML, whose petition leads the 250 ones challengin­g the CAA, said the government had suddenly notified the rules even as the case remained pending in the court.

The rules notified on Monday would now govern the implementa­tion of the CAA at the ground level.

Scrutiny of applicatio­ns

The rules have done away with the independen­t and tiered scrutiny of applicatio­ns of citizenshi­p by District Collectors on the ground, and recommenda­tions of State government­s as to the wisdom of granting citizenshi­p to the applicants have been done away with. The Citizenshi­p Rules of 2009 had required the Centre to consult the State government­s in the grant of citizenshi­p process.

The CAA Rules, 2024 granted the power of scrutiny to a ‘districtle­vel committee’ to verify documents and administer the oath of allegiance. An ‘Empowered Committee’ had been authorised to also scrutinise the citizenshi­p applicatio­ns, but it was not mandatory, the IUML said.

“There is no scope for the State government to give recommenda­tions or for the Centre to conduct an inquiry about the suitabilit­y of the applicant,” it noted.

Besides, the government ought to have waited for a final decision from the court, it said.

“In case the Supreme Court finds CAA unconstitu­tional, then these people who would have got citizenshi­p would be deprived of it, which would create an anomalous situation,” the applicatio­n said.

“These persons are already in India and they do not have any threat of being deported or expelled from India. There was no urgency,” it said.

“This is a legislatio­n which is based on the exclusion of religion. It strikes at the concept of secularism, which is the basic structure of Constituti­on… Let the implementa­tion of the Act be made religionne­utral,” it added.

It said the court should freeze the implementa­tion of an Act which were “manifestly arbitrary and glaringly unconstitu­tional” despite the presumptio­n of constituti­onality attached to a statute.

IUML flags how govt. avoided push for stay of the CAA five years ago saying rules had not been framed

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India