Adarshila v. Union of India (2020)
Nandini Jain
Bhagwant University, Rajasthan
This Case Commentary is written by Nandini Jain, a Third-year law student of Bhagwant University, Rajasthan
Court- Supreme Court of India
Decided on – The case has not reached a final decision yet
Case type – Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Parties: -
Petitioner: Adharshila Trust
Respondents: Union of India
Introduction
CAA which was passed in December 2019 and NRC have been two of the most controversial legal issues in India. It is necessary to recall the case Adharshila v. Union of India (2020), which can be highlighted as the turning point of the constitutional narrative of CAA and NRC. In this regard, the constitutionality and legitimacy of CAAs were challenged and apprehensions, responsibilities, and ambiguities about NRC particularly in terms of constitutionality, humanism, human rights, and secularism of India were raised.
Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)
The CAA was brought to open amendments to the Citizenship Act of 1955. The key provision of the CAA is that it grants a path to Indian citizenship for religious minorities (Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians) from three neighbouring Muslim-majority countries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. This law is applied to the people who arrived in India before 31st December 2014 and saves them from being considered illegal immigrants.
National Register of Citizens (NRC)
The NRC is a register specially created to accommodate all legal citizens of India. It was introduced in Assam in its bid to check cross-border migration, especially from Bangladesh. However, the government’s purpose to extend the NRC across the country raised concerns of mass exclusion, particularly for the minority, poor, and those who lack adequate documents.
Opponents of the CAA and NRC say that the implementation of both these policies would further marginalize Muslim citizens and non-citizens and hence is anti-secular as per the Constitution of India. On the other hand, the government in support of the CAA says that it is a humanitarian step meant for the protection of religious minorities in the neighbouring countries while the NRC, according to the government, is needed for security.
The Petition
In Adharshila v. Union of India, the various petitions filed by many of the applicants including the social organizations, individuals, and also the political parties oppose the CAA and even its link with NRC. The primary grounds of challenge were:
1. Violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality): The petitioners also argued that the legislation infringes on Article 14 of the Constitution on equality arguing that the same discriminates based on religion. Otherwise, as petitioners noted in their speech Muslims despite not falling under the CAA’s jurisdiction, this piece of legislation remains discriminative and arbitrary until now.
2. Violation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): The petitioners further explained that the CAA and NRC will lead to statelessness given the fact that many people especially minorities in India will not be in a position to produce the required documents. They claimed that this would violate the right to life and personal liberty that is safeguarded under the Constitution, particularly under Article 21.
3. Violation of Article 25 (Freedom of Religion): The exclusion of Muslims from the CAA was also considered as the violation of the rights of freedom of religion as enshrined under, Article 25. The petitioners also contended that the CAA discriminating against people criminalizes them based on religion.
4. Undermining Secularism (Preamble and Basic Structure Doctrine): Respective to that, the petitioners explained how the CAA affects the basic structure of the constitution, in this case, the secular aspect of the Indian state as enshrined in the preamble of the constitution. They pointed out that this law undermines the principle of ‘secularism’ which is so vital to the Indian state.
5. NRC as an Instrument of Exclusion: The petitioners also showed their concern in the event NRC is implemented especially when conducted alongside the CAA. They also pointed out that due to this; most of the poor, illiterate, and rural people are the most affected by the NRC.
The Union of India’s Defence
In response to these challenges, the Union of India defended the CAA on the following grounds: To address the above-mentioned challenges, the Union of India defended the CAA on the following basis:
1. Historical and Humanitarian Justification: The government said that CAA is a humanitarian measure aimed at assisting the persecuted religious minorities in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, & Pakistan. The government’s reason for not listing Muslims as systematic religious minorities in their respective nations and who as such suffer religion-based persecution is that Muslims are not minorities in these nations.
2. Article 14: Reasonable Classification: The government observed that the provision of Article 14 has not been offended by the CAA because the Act has been framed with a rational basis about religious persecution. They claimed that this one was based on reason (classification is based on religious persecution of neighbouring countries); therefore, it was legal.
3. NRC as a Security Measure: Even the Union of India followed it and supported the NRC purporting that the document is requisite for safety and restricted infiltration. They added that the government went on to argue that the NRC is not prejudiced and would impact every human being in the country.
4. No Impact on Indian Muslims: As is said by the government time and again CAA and NRC are not against the Indian Muslims because the former is only for the non-citizens while the latter is to find the intruders. Indian Muslims they foresee were not in any way whatsoever should be apprehensive of these measures for they were for their good.
The Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment
When formulating a ruling on the petition, the Supreme Court highlighted the constitutional and social aspects of the case. The Court’s observations focused on the following key issues:
1. Equality of citizens – Article 14
The Supreme Court also appreciated the Article 14 issue as devastating. The Court noted that the principle of equality is entrenched in the Constitution and then made it clear that the party that wants to enact a law that discriminates against persons based on their religion then his or her law must first undergo the reasonableness test.
But the Court also pointed out that the doctrine of reasonable classification is available within Article 14 whereby there should be a reasonable relationship between the classification made and the object intended to be achieved. The premise of this controversy was hence a battle for classification; whether or not the exclusion of Muslims from the CAA was rational about the protection of persecuted religious minorities.
The Court did not disallow the CAA out-of-hand but it began to question the racist nature of the law.
2. Secularism and the Basic Structure Doctrine
The other important aspect of the case was the claim made by the petitioners that the CAA is unconstitutional because it is violative of the principle of secularism which has been made a basic feature of the Constitution. While acknowledging that secularism is the cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, the Court also seemed to buy the government’s assertion that the CAA is to deal with such specific cases of religious persecution in neighbouring countries.
The Court offered some guidance on how the challenge under the basic structure doctrine operates to state that the threshold of proving a violation is high and to further indicate how fundamental alteration of the constitutional balance holds sway in determining the merit of a violation. Here, the Court said that although the concerns of the CAA are valid, it does not, at this time, change the secular nature of the Constitution.
3. Human rights and statelessness are significant topics in the current world that relate to Article 21 of the United Nations Convention on the Protection of Refugees.
Some of the concerns that the petitioners had included the possibility of statelessness especially for vulnerable groups of persons who may lack sufficient identification documents that establish their citizenship. Another way was The Court accepted the contention of the petitioner about the fact that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 has the right to live with dignity included in it. In any case, the Court held that any law or policy that results in statelessness of fundamental rights must be ensured by checking this law or policy whether infringes Article 21 or not.
Yet, the Court showed a special concern for the effects the NRC could have on vulnerable people and ordered the government to guarantee that the NRC’s application would not result in a violation of people’s rights.
Conclusion
The Adharshila v. Union of India case went a long way in the legal and political discussion about the implementation of the CAA and the NRC. The Court had to balance as well; it was rather cautious to say that a proper investigation on the constitutional validity of the CAA is encouraged but such an investigation is limited to rather only judicial scrutiny for the time being.
The Court did not annul the CAA in its entirety but it did put forth doubt to some extent about the discrimination that this particular law may perpetuate and whether such a law fits into the secular law and constitution of India. The Court also raised and considered that care needs to be taken to ensure that the NRC does not result in the unjustified discrimination of certain groups.
The broad consequences of the case are profound. There are pending appeals about the decrees quoted about the CAA and NRC, not one quite yet has put a complete stop to it, and this particular judgment of the Supreme Court leaves open the possibility of more arguments and more hearings on the matter in the future. Still, this case exposes fundamental contradictions between immigration and the security appetites of the government and equality, secularism, and human rights as Constitutional principles.
References