The first steps towards converting a secular democracy into a Hindutva nation are being taken by making religion a criterion for citizenship, Manu Sebastian, High Court Lawyer and Managing Editor of Live Law has said.
He was speaking at a seminar on the Citizenship Amendment Bill, organised by ‘Humans’ at the Press Club here on Sunday.
“At the time of framing our Constitution, there were debates regarding the relationship between the religion and the State. Any connection between religion and citizenship was discarded back then itself. The Citizenship Act 1955 also followed this. Now, by combining the CAA and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), it is being attempted to take the country back by 70 years, to the pre-Constitution period.
Once we look beyond the layer of sophistication in the arguments supporting the latest amendment, all one can see is a narrow mindset to divide based on religion,” Mr. Sebastian said.
Amendment in 1987
He said that it was in 1987 that an amendment was made to the Citizenship Act, to bring restrictions on citizenship, by making it compulsory that at least one of the parents should be an Indian citizen for those born after that year.
In 2003, during the tenure of the first NDA Government, one more condition was inserted that the second parent should not be an illegal migrant. The basis of the current discussions go back to this amendment.
“As per the new amendment, non-Muslim migrants from three countries - Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh - who have reached India before 2014 will not be considered illegal. There is a clear religious discrimination in the selection of countries and in the group of people who are excluded. Why were Rohingya Muslims and Sri Lankan Tamils, who are both experiencing religious persecution excluded?
This is a violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution, which provides for equality before the law,” he said.
Supreme Court lawyer Rashmitha Chandran spoke on the ambivalence and lack of clarity in recent SC judgments. She pointed out the judgments in the Ayodhya case, Aaadhar case and Sabarimala case as instances where the Court's stand was ambivalent.
“As per the SC's own judgment, in case a judgment is not stayed, it means that the previous judgment still stands. However, in the Sabarimala case, this was not how it was. The law is supposed to be objective, but we are living in a time when the people believe that there will be a different judgment for the same matter depending on the configuration of the judges in the bench,” she said.
