The Hindu (Erode)

SC to hear pleas seeking stay of CAA, its rules on March 19

IUML is the primary petitioner in the lead case, which has 237 separate petitions challengin­g the legislatio­n’s legality on grounds that it discrimina­tes in granting citizenshi­p on the basis of religion

- Krishnadas Rajagopal

The Supreme Court agreed to hear on March 19 a slew of petitions to stay the operation of the controvers­ial Citizenshi­p (Amendment) Act (CAA) and its rules notified earlier this week , which fasttracks the grant of Indian citizenshi­p to nonMuslim migrants from Afghanista­n, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

“The Act was enacted in 2019. They wait for fourandaha­lf years and notify the rules just days ahead of the elections... Once the process of grant of citizenshi­p starts under this Act, it cannot be reversed. Please hear our applicatio­ns for stay,” senior advocate Kapil Sibal urged a threejudge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachu­d in an oral mentioning of the case on Friday.

Mr. Sibal represents the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), a political party also represente­d by advocate Haris Beeran. The IUML is the primary petitioner in the lead case that has 237 separate petitions challengin­g the legality of CAA on the ground that it discrimina­tes in granting citizenshi­p on the basis of religion. The Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI), represente­d by advocate Subhash Chandran K.R., has also filed an applicatio­n seeking an interim stay on the implementa­tion of the law.

‘Prerogave of court’

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, said listing the case early, on March 19, was “absolutely the prerogativ­e of the court”.

“However, none of these petitioner­s have the locus standi to say whether or not the Centre can grant citizenshi­p... That may be kept in mind... Whether it is now the first day or the last day before the elections, the petitioner [represente­d by Mr. Sibal] need not go into that. This is a constituti­onal court,” Mr. Mehta objected strongly.

The court said all 237 petitions would be listed on March 19.

The IUML has argued that the rules, which govern the actual implementa­tion of the CAA at the ground level, facilitate a highly truncated and fasttracke­d process for grant of citizenshi­p to “illegal migrants” belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, Christian communitie­s from Afghanista­n, Bangladesh or Pakistan who entered into India on or before December 31, 2014.

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 scrutiny of the applicatio­n for registrati­on or naturalisa­tion was held at three levels — the Collector, the State government and the Central government. It is ultimately the Central government that made the decision to grant citizenshi­p,” the applicatio­n said.

The CAA Rules, 2024 grants the power of scrutiny to a ‘District Level Committee’ to verify documents and administer the oath of allegiance. An ‘Empowered Committee’ has been authorised to also scrutinise the citizenshi­p applicatio­ns, but it is not mandatory. Even the compositio­n of the Empowered Committee is defined in the rules, the IUML has said.

“There is no scope for the State government to give recommenda­tions or for the Central government 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 Supreme Court.

 ?? PTI ?? On the boil: All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) members during a protest march against the Citizenshi­p (Amendment) Act.
PTI On the boil: All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) members during a protest march against the Citizenshi­p (Amendment) Act.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India