Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) AND NRC

J A Dhrishith

Bharath Institute of Law

This Case Commentary is written by J A Dhrishith, a Third-Year Law Student of Bharath Institute of Law

COURT: Supreme Court of India

EQUIVALENT CITATION: To be updated post the conclusion of the case.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: Pending

BENCH INVOLVED: To be updated once the case is listed and judgment delivered.

PARTIES:

  • PETITIONER: Various Civil Society Groups and Political Parties

  • RESPONDENT: Union of India

STATUTE:

  • The Constitution of India, 1950.

  • The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019.

  • Foreigners Act, 1946.

  • Passports Act, 1920.

  • The NRC Regulations, 2003.

BOOKS:

  • D.D. BASU's Introduction to the Constitution of India, 23rd edition.

  • V.N. SHUKLA's Constitution of India, 13th edition.

  • M.P. JAIN's Indian Constitutional Law, 8th edition.

INTRODUCTION

The Citizenship Amendment Act faced the bitter critique of constitutionalists on grounds of violations of guarantees of equality and secularism, just like another legislative measure, that is the National Register of Citizens. The Citizenship Amendment Act is a measure of conferring citizenship on oppressed minorities of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who entered India before December 31, 2014; however, Muslim refugees are excluded from the ambit of the CAA. The NRC instituted first in Assam but likely to be extended elsewhere in India, is expected to identify illegal immigrants.

Whether such measures conduce to conformity with constitutional provisions that provide for equality and prohibit religious discrimination forms the core of the controversy. Many of these petitions challenging such laws raise some more basic questions about citizenship, secularism, and human rights in India.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

India has long been a sanctuary for oppressed communities around the world: for Tibetan refugees, Sri Lankan Tamils, and Rohingyas. The CAA, however, is the first list of citizenship grounds that bars an entire religious group. The NRC was designed first for Assam to weed out citizen-dwellers and applied to sift alleged "undocumented" migrants from Bangladesh. Many are shocked to not be on that list. The center has suggested that NRC be applied everywhere; it may pose a negative impact on a large and divergent population of India.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Arguing based on vires of the CAA, which keeps Muslim refugees out of its fold, the appeal of the petitioners reasons that the exclusion of Muslims from the ambit of CAA violates Article 14 guarantee of equal treatment and also Articles 15 and 25 against discrimination based on religion. Another count averred that even an all-India NRC if enacted step and alignment with the CAA, would squarely target vulnerable segments-mainly Muslim persons-and lead to arbitrary detention and statelessness.

The government has been on its defence, arguing that the CAA has humanitarian merit as it protects minorities persecuted by religion in all the neighbouring Islamic countries against fleeing to those places. Further, it argues exclusion of Muslims as being not a religious minority in those countries. The NRC is necessary, the government claimed, for checking illegal migration and for maintaining national security.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution by omitting Muslim refugees.

2. Whether the national implementation of NRC would lead to discrimination and random denial of citizenship, especially to the Muslims and the marginalized.

3. Whether the CAA and NRC would violate the constitutional guarantee of secularism promised by the Preamble and other provisions of the Constitution.

ARGUMENTS BY THE PETITIONERS

1. Violation of the Right to Equality: The petitioners have submitted that the exclusion of Muslim refugees by the CAA violates the principle of equality under Article 14. The pleadings made by the petitioners are that the law discriminates on the grounds of religion alone, which is unconstitutional in a secular state.

2. Secularism and religious discrimination: The petitioners argued that the CAA was violative of the principle of secularism in the Preamble as religion formed the basis for conferring citizenship. They further contended that Articles 15 and 25 which prohibited discrimination on grounds of religion and provided for freedom of religion respectively were infringed by this enactment.

3. Risk of Statelessness under NRC: The petitioners have noted that the NRC may only make a vast section of people stateless; therefore, the poor, the marginalized, and Muslims would be the first victims. Documentation would purportedly hit these deprived sectors straight and lead to an infringement of their right to life and liberty under Article 21.

ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENTS

1. Humanitarian Reasons: While still taking the defence grounds of CAA, the government said that it rescued religious minorities who ran away from contiguous countries from persecution. According to their argument, they are not religious minorities the exclusion of Muslims in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh.

2. Constitutional basis: The government will argue that Article 14 indeed allows reasonable classification and the intelligible differentia for the classification which has been done in CAA is found there, for the reason that it targets peculiar historical and geographical contexts.

3. It is a Measure of National Security: Respondents on grounds that there has to be an NRC to the extent of illegal immigration, which threatens the national security of the state. It further argues enough measures so as not to allow and target real citizens.

4. Humanitarian Grounds: The government has justified CAA as making religious minorities suffer persecution attacks from contiguous states. The exclusion of Muslims is justified because such a minority religion does not exist in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh.

5. Constitutional Validity: It is submitted that Article 14 permits reasonable classification. Again, difference as evolved in the CAA is founded on intelligible differentia. That is the law contains specific historical and geographical conditions.

6. NRC as National Security Measure: The respondents believe that the NRC would serve as an effective measure of ensuring national security by curbing the malice of illegal immigration. The government will, for sure, assure the House that enough precautions will be taken not to target bonafide citizens unfairly.

JUDGMENT (To be delivered)

The case is still pending in India's Supreme Court, and subsequent hearings have been held since the enactment of the CAA in 2019. Hopefully, the court will be able to settle the constitutional questions thrown up by exclusionary provisions for Muslims but also the implications and scope of a possible nationwide NRC. The judgment might have far-reaching effects on India's citizenship laws and its secular framework.

CASE COMMENTARY

Perhaps an even deeper question pertains to the kind of citizenship, equality, and secularism that can be accepted in India that this constitutional challenge to CAA and NRC incisively raises. While working its case out as being a humanitarian measure, exclusion based on religion does seem to run in contradiction to the secular constitution of India. The grounds get murkier by bringing in an additional argument that NRC may leave millions of Indian citizens stateless.

This would be even more crucial for the Supreme Court to balance humanitarian relief with constitutional principles. If CAA is sustained then religious-oriented laws toward the secular ethos of the Constitution may open up. However, if the court either strikes it down or declares partially unconstitutional of its important portions then that would reinforce the importance of equality and non-discrimination principles in Indian law.

CONCLUSION

This has thrown open a constitutional debate on the very notion of equality, secularism, and citizenship in India. The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, and the National Register of Citizens have uncorked a constitutional debate that will set up a precedent for future legislative citizenry and minority rights cases as the case progresses at the Supreme Court level. Balancing humanitarian concerns with the constitutional requirements of equality and secularism would prove tricky. REFERENCES D.D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India 23rd edition. Shukla, V.N., Constitution of India, 13th ed. Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, 8th ed. The Citizenship Act 2019. The Foreigners Act, 1946.

REFERENCES

· Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019: Overview and Analysis (prsindia.org) (visited on 19 September 2024)

· Understanding the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and its Implications (thehindu.com) (visited on 19 September 2024)

· Case Study on the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and NRC (lawtimesjournal.in) (visited on 19 September 2024)

· Citizenship Amendment Act: Legal and Constitutional Perspectives (barandbench.com) (visited on 19 September 2024)

· NRC and CAA: A Detailed Commentary (indiankanoon.org) (visited on 19 September 2024)

· Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (India) (legislative.gov.in) (visited on 19 September 2024)

· National Register of Citizens (NRC) (mha.gov.in) (visited on 19 September 2024)