CAA and status of judicial proceedings
How have the newly notified rules eased the process of granting Indian citizenship to specific communities under the CAA? What arguments have been presented for challenging its constitutionality? What is the significance of the government’s assertion t
The story so far: our years after Parliament passed the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) notified the rules to implement the law on March 11. It fasttracks citizenship for undocumented immigrants from six nonMuslim communities — Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Parsi, Christian and Jain — from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. The CAA is also under challenge before the Supreme Court, with several petitioners moving fresh pleas seeking a stay on the implementation of the rules.
FWhat are the implications of CAA?
In December 2019, Parliament passed an amendment to The Citizenship Act, 1955 (1955 Act) introducing a new proviso to Section 2(1)(b) which defines “illegal migrants.” Accordingly, undocumented immigrants who entered India on or before December 31, 2014, and whom the Central government has exempted under the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, or the Foreigners Act, 1946, would be eligible for citizenship under the 1955 Act.
However, certain tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura were exempted from the legislation’s ambit. To access these protected areas, an Inner Line Permit (ILP) is needed from the concerned State governments.
A key concern is that when viewed in combination with the proposed allIndia National Register of Indian Citizens (NRIC), the CAA has the potential to disproportionately impact Muslims residing in India. In the event of people being excluded from NRIC, nonMuslims may have an opportunity to get included through the CAA, while it may be denied to Muslims. A Supreme Courtmonitored National Register of Citizens that took place in Assam in 2021 left out over 19 lakh people from the citizenship register.
On May 28, 2021, the Union government issued an order under Section 16 of the 1955 Act, granting District Collectors in five States with high migrant populations the power to grant citizenship to groups identified in the 2019 amendment. In its 202122 Annual Report, the MHA stated that in 2021, 1,414 citizenship certificates were granted under CAA provisions. However, after petitions were filed alleging that this order was a “ruse” to implement CAA, the MHA contended before the court that its order had “no relation whatsoever” with the CAA and that it merely delegated “the power (of granting citizenship by registration and naturalisation) to the local authorities in particular cases.”
With the newly notified rules, the Centre has eased the process of granting Indian citizenship to members of the specified communities by excluding the requirement of a “valid passport” of their origin countries or a valid visa from India. Instead, “any document” that shows one of the parents, grandparents or even greatgrandparents of the applicant was from one of these countries is sufficient to prove their nationality. Additionally, a certificate issued by an elected member of a local body can be a replacement for a visa.
After the legislation’s enactment in 2019, the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) filed a petition challenging its constitutionality, which was joined by close to 200 petitions. These petitions challenge the law for violating Article 14 of the Constitution by making religion a qualifier for citizenship.
The CAA has also been dubbed as a move to subvert the Assam Accord of 1985 that deems any person who cannot prove his ancestry beyond March 24, 1971, as an alien and does not differentiate on grounds of religion. The petitions contend that the law will further multiply the “uncontrolled influx of illegal migrants from Bangladesh to Assam.”
How has the Supreme Court responded?
Calling the CAA a “benign piece of legislation,” the Centre in its affidavit before the Supreme Court said that it seeks to provide amnesty to specific communities from specified countries with a clear cutoff date. It highlighted that the law does not in any manner affect the legal, democratic or secular rights of any Indian citizen.
The affidavit further stated that the “narrowly tailored legislation” was passed to “tackle a specific problem, i.e., the persecution on the ground of religion in the light of the undisputable theocratic constitutional position in these specified countries, the systematic functioning of these States and the perception of fear that may be prevalent amongst minorities as per the de facto situation in these countries.”
On December 18, 2019, a Bench comprising former Chief Justice of India (CJI) S.A. Bobde refused to stay the operation of the law and instead suggested that the government publicise the actual intent of the Act. The court rejected a similar plea for stay on January 22, 2020, by underscoring that it needs to hear the government first.
On October 6, 2022, a Bench comprising former CJI U.U. Lalit passed an order stating that final hearings in the case would begin on December 6, 2022. However, the case has not been listed since then. As per the Supreme Court’s website, the petitions are currently listed before a Bench headed by Justice Pankaj Mithal.
Why are petitioners seeking a stay on the rules?
The IUML and others have moved the top court seeking a stay on the rules notified on March 11.
They have pointed out how the Centre had earlier averted a push for a stay of the CAA in the Supreme Court nearly five years ago by arguing that the rules had not been framed. It has also been highlighted that the rules have done away with the tiered scrutiny of applications for citizenship by District Collectors on the ground, and recommendations of State governments as to the wisdom of granting citizenship.
They said that the government ought to have waited for a final decision from the Supreme Court before implementing the rules.
What is the significance of the challenge to Section 6A?
The proceedings against the CAA are also dependent on the outcome of the challenge to Section 6A of the 1955 Act which was introduced in furtherance of a Memorandum of Settlement called the “Assam Accord” signed on August 15,
1985.
In December last year, a fivejudge Constitution Bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud reserved its verdict on the validity of Section 6A after orally observing that the provision was enacted as a humanitarian measure in the wake of the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War and was deeply interwoven in the country’s history.
Section 6A determines who is a foreigner in Assam by establishing March 24, 1971, as the cutoff date for entry — those who came to the State on or after January 1, 1966, but before March 25, 1971, were to be declared as “foreigners” and would have all the rights and obligations of Indian citizens except that they would not be able to vote for 10 years.
If March 24, 1971, is upheld as a valid cutoff date for entry into the State, then CAA can be held to be violative of the Assam Accord since it establishes a different timeline. been called one of the world’s deadliest conflicts since the Second World War, but fighting has continued.
Who are the M23 rebels?
The March 23 Movement or M23, formed in 2012, claims to defend Tutsi interests against Hutu militias. Originating from a 2009 ceasefire agreement, it broke away from the Congolese army, accusing the government of failing to integrate Tutsis. The group resurged in 2022, citing attacks by Hutu militias. Recent attacks near Goma have escalated the humanitarian crisis, prompting protests urging Rwanda’s withdrawal of support.
The worsening violence has led to an escalation in tensions between the DRC and Rwanda, with Congo accusing the latter of backing M23 rebels. Rwanda has repeatedly denied these allegations. Rwanda has claimed the escalation is due to Congo’s decision to send back regional peacekeepers.
The new fighting could lead to an escalation of regional tensions and involve more countries. The International NGO Forum in Congo said the escalation has involved artillery attacks on civilian settlements, causing a heavy toll and forcing many health and aid workers to withdraw. There are concerns a new disaster could go unnoticed because of the attention on the war in Gaza and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Petitions challenge the CAA’s constitutionality, arguing it violates Article 14 by making religion a qualifier for citizenship.
DPetitions seek a stay on the recently notified rules, criticising the bypassing of tiered scrutiny for citizenship applications and the government’s decision to implement rules before a final court decision.
The conflict exacerbates the humanitarian crisis in the region, with increased fatalities, displacements, and food security risks.
DThe United Nations and several Western countries denounce the attacks and urge the M23 rebels to halt their offensive.