The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, the Ministry of Home Affairs on Monday notified the Rules to implement the law.
The CAA, which had led to widespread protests in the winter of 2019-20, is also under challenge before the Supreme Court. Why is the CAA contentious, and what will change after it is implemented.
More than four years after Parliament passed The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, the Ministry of Home Affairs on Monday notified the Rules to implement the law.The citizenship law
In December 2019, Parliament passed an amendment to The Citizenship Act, 1955, to include a provision for grant of citizenship to migrants belonging to the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian communities who entered India before December 31, 2014 from Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Bangladesh.
In essence, the amendment relaxed the eligibility criteria for certain classes of migrants (on religious lines) from three neighbouring Muslim-majority countries. Certain categories of areas, including tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura, and areas protected by the ‘Inner Line’ system, were exempted from the purview of the CAA.The 39-page Rules notified in the e-gazette on Monday prescribe the modalities and procedure for eligible individuals to apply for Indian citizenship. The Rules specify what documents and paperwork are required for putting forward and considering a claim of citizenship.
The legal challenge
The amendment was challenged before the Supreme Court in 2020 by the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML). Since then, more than 200 petitions have been filed and tagged with the IUML’s challenge. These include petitions from politicians Asaduddin Owaisi, Jairam Ramesh, Ramesh Chennithala, and Mahua Moitra, and political organisations such as the Assam Pradesh Congress Committee, Asom Gana Parishad (AGP), National People’s Party (Assam), Muslim Students’ Federation (Assam), and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK).
Read Also | No relevance of stir against CAA, move SC to cancel it: Himanta to agitators
In October 2022, a Bench comprising then Chief Justice of India U U Lalit and Justices Ravindra Bhat and Hima Kohli passed an order stating that final hearings would begin in December 2022 after CJI Lalit’s retirement. However, the case has not been heard since.
According to the Supreme Court website, the case is currently listed before a Bench headed by Justice Pankaj Mithal.
The right to equality
The challenge to the CAA rests on the ground that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which says that “the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”. The petitioners’ argue that using religion as a qualifier or a filter violates the fundamental right to equality.
The petitioners have argued that the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam to identify illegal immigrants, along with the CAA, will result in the targeting of Muslims.
The court will have to look into whether the special treatment given to the so called “persecuted minorities” from the three Muslim-majority neighbouring countries only is a reasonable classification under Article 14 for granting citizenship, and whether the state is discriminating against Muslims by excluding them.
Read Also | Religion cannot be basis of citizenship: Cong MP Manish Tewari on ‘CAA rules before LS polls’
The Supreme Court has held that the law has to clear two legal hoops to pass the equality test when it is challenged on the grounds of Article 14. First, any differentiation between groups of persons must be founded on an “intelligible differentia”, and second, “that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Act”.
The government has said that Muslims have been excluded from the group of “persecuted” minorities because Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh are Islamic countries where Muslims are in majority. However, it will be tested whether these three countries were picked essentially to keep Muslims out — this is because groups like Tamil Hindus in Sri Lanka, the Rohingya in Myanmar, or minority Muslim sects like Ahmadiyyas and Hazaras are also persecuted minorities in these countries.
Read Also | Sikhs stand for equality, include Muslims in CAA: Akal Takht Jathedar
The SC can strike down a classification if it is found to be arbitrary. The court recently struck down the electoral bonds scheme on the ground that it was “manifestly arbitrary” — that is, “irrational, capricious or without an adequate determining principle”.
There is also the larger issue of whether making religion a ground for eligibility for citizenship violates secularism, which is a basic feature of the Constitution.
The CAA and Assam
Apart from the equality argument, part of the challenge to the CAA also rests on the fate of Section 6A of The Citizenship Act, 1955, which too is under challenge before the SC.
In December 2023, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud reserved its verdict on the validity of Section 6A, which was introduced in the Citizenship Act after the signing of the Assam Accord between the Centre and the leaders of the Assam movement in August 1985.
Read Also | CAA copies burnt, ‘hartal’ announced in Assam as Centre notifies rules
The Accord determines who is a foreigner in the state of Assam. Clause 5 of the Accord states that January 1, 1966 shall serve as the base cut-off date for the detection and deletion of “foreigners”, but there are provisions for the regularisation of those who arrived in the state after that date, and upto March 24, 1971. This was also the basis of the final NRC published in 2019.
Section 6A of the Act allows foreign migrants who came to Assam after January 1, 1966 but before March 25, 1971, to seek Indian citizenship. If the effective cut off date of March 24, 1971 is upheld by the SC as the cut-off date for entry into the state, the CAA could fall foul of the Assam Accord, since it creates a different timeline.
The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) is a law passed by the Parliament of India in December 2019. It provides a path to Indian citizenship for religious minorities from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh who entered India on or before December 31, 2014, and faced persecution on the basis of religion.
However, the CAA has been a subject of controversy and sparked protests across India. Critics argue that the act is discriminatory because it excludes Muslims and violates the secular principles of the Indian Constitution. They also fear that it could be used in conjunction with the National Register of Citizens (NRC) to target and marginalize Muslim citizens.
Supporters of the CAA argue that it is a humanitarian measure aimed at providing refuge to persecuted religious minorities in neighboring countries. They contend that the act does not affect the citizenship status of Indian Muslims and is in line with India’s historical role as a safe haven for persecuted communities.
The CAA issue has been highly polarizing and has led to significant debate and political tensions in India. It has also raised concerns about the future of secularism and inclusivity in the country.
The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) is a piece of legislation that was passed by the Parliament of India in December 2019. The CAA provides a path to Indian citizenship for religious minorities (specifically Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians) who have faced persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan and entered India on or before December 31, 2014. Notably, it excludes Muslims from its purview, which has led to significant controversy and protests across India.
Critics of the CAA argue that it violates the secular principles of the Indian Constitution by discriminating against Muslims and undermines the secular fabric of the country. They also fear that when combined with the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the National Population Register (NPR), the CAA could be used to marginalize and disenfranchise Muslims, especially those who are unable to provide documentation to prove their citizenship.
Supporters of the CAA argue that it is a humanitarian measure aimed at providing refuge to persecuted minorities in neighboring countries and that it does not affect the citizenship status of Indian Muslims. They also assert that the CAA is consistent with India’s tradition of providing shelter to persecuted communities.
The CAA issue has sparked widespread debate, protests, and political polarization in India. It remains a contentious topic, with both supporters and critics continuing to voice their opinions and engage in advocacy efforts.
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) was passed by the Parliament of India on 11 December 2019. It amended the Citizenship Act, 1955 by providing an accelerated pathway to Indian citizenship for persecuted religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan who arrived in India by 2014. The eligible minorities were stated as Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis or Christians. The law does not grant such eligibility to Muslims from these countries. The act was the first time that religion had been overtly used as a criterion for citizenship under Indian law, and it attracted global criticism.
The BJP, which leads the Indian government, had promised in previous election manifestos to offer Indian citizenship to members of persecuted religious minorities who had migrated from neighbouring countries. Under the 2019 amendment, migrants who had entered India by 31 December 2014, and had suffered “religious persecution or fear of religious persecution” in their country of origin, were made eligible for accelerated citizenship. The amendment relaxed the residence requirement for naturalisation of these migrants from twelve years to six. According to Intelligence Bureau records, there will be just over 30,000 immediate beneficiaries of the act.
The amendment has been criticized as discriminating on the basis of religion, particularly for excluding Muslims. The OHCHR called it “fundamentally discriminatory”, adding that while India’s “goal of protecting persecuted groups is welcome”, this should be accomplished through a non-discriminatory “robust national asylum system”. Critics express concerns that the bill would be used, along with the NRC, to render many Muslim citizens stateless, as they may be unable to meet stringent birth or identity proof requirements.Commentators also question the exclusion of persecuted religious minorities from other regions such as Tibet, Sri Lanka and Myanmar. The Indian government said that since Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh have Islam as their state religion, it is therefore “unlikely” that Muslims would “face religious persecution” there. However, certain Muslim groups, such as Hazaras (mostly Shias) and Ahmadis, have historically faced persecution in these countries.
The passage of the legislation caused large-scale protests in India. Assam and other northeastern states witnessed violent demonstrations against the bill over fears that granting Indian citizenship to refugees and immigrants will cause a loss of their “political rights, culture and land rights” and motivate further migration from Bangladesh. In other parts of India, protesters said that the bill discriminated against Muslims, and demanded that Indian citizenship be granted to Muslim refugees and immigrants as well. Major protests against the Act were held at some universities in India. Students at AMU and JMI alleged brutal suppression by the police. The protests have led to the deaths of several protesters, injuries to both protesters and police officers, damage to public and private property, the detention of hundreds of people, and suspensions of local internet mobile phone connectivity in certain areas. Some states announced that they would not implement the Act. In response, the MHA said that states lack the legal power to stop the implementation of the CAA.
On 11 March 2024, the Ministry of Home Affairs officially announced the rules for the Citizenship Amendment Act. This development follows Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s commitment to implement them before the 2024 national elections.
Background
Citizenship law
The Indian Constitution implemented in 1950 guaranteed citizenship to all of the country’s residents at the commencement of the constitution, and made no distinction on the basis of religion.[34][35][36] In 1955, the Indian government passed the Citizenship Act, by which all people born in India subject to some limitations were accorded citizenship. The Act also provided two means for foreigners to acquire Indian citizenship. People from “undivided India” were given a means of registration after seven years of residency in India. Those from other countries were given a means of naturalisation after twelve years of residency in India.Political developments in the 1980s, particularly those related to the violent Assam movement against migrants from Bangladesh, triggered revisions to the Citizenship Act. The Act was first amended in 1985 after the Assam Accord signed by Rajiv Gandhi government, granting citizenship to all Bangladeshi migrants that arrived before 1971 subject to some provisos. The government also agreed to identify all migrants that arrived afterwards, remove their names from the electoral rolls, and expel them from the country.
The Citizenship Act was further amended in 1992, 2003, 2005 and 2015. In December 2003, the National Democratic Alliance government, led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), passed the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 with far-reaching revisions of the Citizenship Act. It added the notion of “illegal immigrants” to the Act, making them ineligible to apply for citizenship (by registration or naturalisation), and declaring their children also as illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants were defined as citizens of other countries who entered India without valid travel documents, or who remained in the country beyond the period permitted by their travel documents. They can be deported or imprisoned.
The 2003 amendment also mandated the Government of India to create and maintain a National Register of Citizens. The bill was supported by the Indian National Congress, as well as the Left parties, such as the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI (M)). During the parliamentary debate on the amendment, the leader of opposition, Manmohan Singh, stated that refugees belonging to minority communities in Bangladesh and other countries had faced persecution, and requested a liberal approach to granting them citizenship. According to M.K. Venu, the formulation of the 2003 amendment discussed by Advani and Singh was based on the idea that Muslim groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan that had experienced persecution also needed to be treated with compassion.
Immigrants and refugees
A very large number of illegal immigrants, the largest numbers of whom are from Bangladesh, live in India. The Task Force on Border Management quoted the figure of 15 million illegal migrants in 2001. In 2004, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government stated in Parliament that there were 12 million illegal Bangladeshi migrants in India. The reasons for the scale of migration include a porous border, historical migration patterns, economic reasons, and cultural and linguistic ties.Many illegal migrants from Bangladesh had eventually received the right to vote. According to Niraja Jayal, this enfranchisement was widely described as an attempt to win elections using the votes of the illegal migrants from Bangladesh. Bangladeshi scholar Abul Barkat estimated that over 11 million Hindus have left Bangladesh for India between 1964 and 2013, at a rate of 230,612 annually. The reasons were religious persecution and discrimination, especially at the hands of the post-independence military regimes. An unknown number of Pakistani Hindu refugees also live in India. An estimated 5,000 refugees arrive per year, citing religious persecution and forced conversion.