Why in the news? 

• The Ministry of Home Affairs notified the rules to implement the CAA, which fast-tracks citizenship for non-Muslim immigrants from neighbouring countries. Despite delays, the Act faces challenges in the Supreme Court.

Context

• Petitions challenge the CAA’s constitutionality, arguing it violates Article 14 by making religion a qualifier for citizenship.
• Petitions seek a stay on the recently notified rules, criticizing the bypassing of tiered scrutiny for citizenship applications and the government’s decision to implement rules before a final court decision.

What are the implications of CAA?

• Potential Impact on Muslims: The CAA, when combined with the proposed National Register of Indian Citizens (NRIC), has the potential to disproportionately affect Muslims residing in India. Non-Muslims may have an opportunity to obtain citizenship through the CAA, while Muslims may be denied this opportunity.
• Exclusion from NRIC: In the event of people being excluded from the NRIC, non-Muslims may have a pathway to inclusion through the CAA, while Muslims may face barriers. The Supreme Court-monitored NRC exercise in Assam in 2021 left over 19 lakh people from the citizenship register, raising concerns about exclusion and discrimination.
• Executive Order and Implementation: The Union government issued an order granting District Collectors in five states with high migrant populations the power to grant citizenship to groups identified in the CAA amendment. However, there were allegations that this order was a tactic to implement the CAA, which the government denied.
• Relaxation of Citizenship Criteria: The newly notified rules under the CAA have eased the process of granting Indian citizenship to members of specified communities by excluding the requirement of a valid passport or visa. Instead, documents showing ancestry from designated countries are deemed sufficient.
• Constitutional Challenges: The constitutionality of the CAA has been challenged in court, with petitions arguing that the law violates Article 14 of the Constitution by making religion a qualifier for citizenship.
• Impact on Assam Accord: The CAA has been criticized as undermining the Assam Accord of 1985, which does not differentiate on grounds of religion and deems any person who cannot prove ancestry beyond March 24, 1971, as an alien. Petitions contend that the law may lead to an increase in the influx of illegal migrants from Bangladesh to Assam.

How has the Supreme Court responded? (Judicial Stand)

• December 2019: The Supreme Court, led by former Chief Justice of India (CJI) S.A. Bobde, refused to stay the operation of the CAA. Instead, the court suggested that the government should publicize the actual intent of the Act.
  • A similar plea for a stay was rejected by the court on January 22, 2020, with the court emphasizing the need to hear the government’s perspective first.
• October 2022: A Bench led by former CJI U.U. Lalit ordered that final hearings in the case would commence on December 6, 2022.
  • However, since then, the case has not been listed. According to the Supreme Court’s website, the petitions are currently before a Bench headed by Justice Pankaj Mithal.

Why are petitioners seeking a stay on the rules?

• Changes in Scrutiny Process: The rules have reportedly eliminated the tiered scrutiny process of applications for citizenship by District Collectors.
  • Previously, District Collectors scrutinized applications, and state governments provided recommendations on granting citizenship. The removal of this scrutiny process is a concern for the petitioners.
• Timing of their implementation: The petitioners highlight that the government had previously avoided a push for a stay on the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in the Supreme Court five years ago by arguing that the rules for implementation had not been framed.
  • Now, with the rules in place, the petitioners question the timing of their implementation.
• Pending Decision from Supreme Court: The petitioners argue that the government should have awaited a final decision from the Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of the CAA before implementing the rules.
  • They suggest that implementing the rules without a definitive ruling from the court could preempt its decision-making process.

Conclusion:

• Implementing the Citizenship Amendment Act and its accompanying rules faces legal challenges and societal implications.
• Moving forward, ensuring fairness, inclusivity, and adherence to constitutional principles will be vital in resolving the complexities surrounding citizenship laws in India.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now