Amid a debate comparing U.S. President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order on “extreme vetting” of visitors from seven countries to the United States and India’s own Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2016, chairman of a joint committee of Parliament on the Bill, Satyapal Singh has denied that an equivalence can be drawn between the two.
Speaking to The Hindu , the former commissioner of police, Mumbai and MP from Baghpat, said that the U.S. President’s order had different connotions than the Amendment Bill.
“To compare the two is incorrect. The U.S. order is to prevent people who the administration feels will possibly indulge in radical terror activities to enter the country, and has more to do with public order and security. Our Bill aims to give succour to those persecuted on religious grounds. There are many cases of religious persecution and people fleeing to India and it has to be taken into account. If Hindus cannot come to India, where will they go?” he asked. “Communities other than Hindus are also included in the Bill,” he said.
Under the Citizenship Act of 1955, an applicant for citizenship requires to have resided in India for the last 12 months and for 11 years.
The Amendment Bill relaxes this 11-year requirement to six years for persons who are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians fleeing religious persecution from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
The moment the Bill was introduced, there was an uproar that it violated Article 14 of the Constitution, that guaranteed equal treatment under the law to all citizens. The exclusion of people following Islam from this list of relaxed terms is considered a direct violation of that Fundamental Right.
Legal options
“We have sought legal opinion of the Law Ministry for this purpose and they have said that it does not violate Article 14. We have received legal opinion to the contrary as well. The committee will have to deliberate on this variety of legal opinion,” he said. The committee is supposed to table its report on the Bill during the second part of the Budget session (March-April).
“We will be making at least two visits, one each to Gujarat and Assam to finalise our conclusions. In Gujarat there is a group of doctors, Hindus who got degrees from Karachi, who cannot practice, cannot open bank accounts as their cases are pending. That is the human face of the Bill,” he said.
Need for reconciliation
Among major sticking points, he said some of the provisions of the Bill did go against the Assam Accord of 1985. According to the provisions of that accord, foreigners who entered Assam after 1971 (the year Bangladesh was created) were to be deported. There are many people, having crossed over from Bangladesh into Assam who could get citizenship under the new provisions of the Bill. The BJP’s ally in Assam, the Asom Gana Parishad (AGP) has objected to the Bill and deposed before the committee as well. “We have to reconcile these differences,” admitted Mr. Singh.
While Mr. Singh has his own reasons for advocating the Bill, it will, just like Mr. Trump’s executive order for “extreme vetting” set off a flurry of legal challenges.
