A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit on Monday posted 232 petitions challenging the Citizenship Amendment Act on December 6, 2022, giving the parties, including the Centre, States of Assam and Tripura, and the petitioners a deadline to complete the paperwork in five weeks so that the hearing can start.
Chief Justice Lalit is retiring on November 8. The case would now come up before another Bench.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Centre, said the government has already filed its reply in court saying the CAA is a “benign piece of legislation” while Assam and Tripura were yet to respond. He sought a short accommodation for the two States to file their responses.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, one of the petitioners, said the "idea is to get the hearing started". He said the issue is not whether there were 200 petitions or 75. He said the issues highlighted in the petitions were the same. The court should designate one of the petitions as the main case and go ahead with the hearing.
Mr. Singhvi said the issues highlighted in the petitions, despite their geographical or religious classifications, were fundamentally constitutional in nature. He asked the government side to be put on a deadline to file their responses.
"Everybody is intent to get it started," Mr. Singhvi said.
The court, in its order, chose the petition filed by the Indian Union Muslim League to be the main case and appointed its lawyer, advocate Pallavi Pratap, as the nodal counsel for the petitioners. It appointed advocate Kanu Agarwal as the nodal counsel for the government side. The court directed that parties on both sides should hand over their submissions and records to their respective nodal counsel, who would in turn prepare a common compilation for the perusal of the court. The digital versions of the compilations would be shared by the parties’ counsel.
It gave Assam and Tripura three weeks to file their responses to the petitions. The two nodal counsels have to prepare their compilations two weeks thereafter.
The Centre's reply through the Home Ministry said the CAA only provided a "relaxation, in the nature of an amnesty, to specific communities from specified countries with a clear cut-off date". Senior advocate P. Wilson submitted that the Centre’s reply does not refer to the Sri Lankan Tamil issue.
The Act fast-tracks the citizenship-by-naturalization process for “illegal migrants” from six religious communities, other than Muslims, who have fled persecution from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan.
The government, in its affidavit filed late on Sunday, said “the CAA is a specific amendment which seeks to tackle a specific problem, i.e., the persecution on the ground of religion in light of the undisputable theocratic constitutional position in these specified countries, the systematic functioning of these States and the perception of fear that may be prevalent amongst minorities as per the de facto situation in these countries”.
The Parliament, in its competence, has passed the law taking into consideration the acknowledged class of minorities in three countries.
It said the plight of these classified communities in neighboring Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan has been attracting the attention of successive governments in India.
“But no government took any legislative measure and merely acknowledged the problem and took some administrative action through executive instructions regarding entry, stay and citizenship issues of these classified communities,” the government said.
Also read: Citizenship Amendment Act was, is, and will be a reality: Amit Shah
The CAA, the government said, was a “narrowly tailored legislation” seeking to address the problem which awaited India’s attention for a solution for several decades.
“The affidavit said the CAA does not in any manner affect the legal, democratic, or secular rights of any Indian citizen. In matters concerning foreign policy, citizenship, economic policy, etc, a wider latitude is available to the Parliament/Legislature,” the Ministry said.
The Ministry said the CAA has been challenged as arbitrary and discriminatory on the ground that federal structure is breached and on the exclusion of certain areas.
The classification of tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, or Tripura as included in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution and the area covered under the ‘The Inner Line’ notified under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulations of 1873 has been made in the CAA on tangible material, historic reasons and prevalent classifications based on differences in population density, native culture, economic and social inability in case of mass migration and reasons of national security.
The Act and its implementation had seen ordinary citizens, including students, professionals, and mothers, protest across the country. Police action on the protestors had drawn heavy criticism.
The apex court had earlier issued a formal notice admitting the petitions filed by people from all walks of life and faiths, from parliamentarians to retired High Commissioners and service officers to lawyers, students, activists, professional associations to Opposition political parties cutting across regions and ideology and NGOs.
The petitions have argued that the law welcomes “illegal migrants” into India selectively on the basis of their religion and pointedly excludes Muslims. It has an “unholy nexus” with the National Register of Citizens (NRC) exercise and is against principles of secularism, the right to equality, and dignity of life enshrined in the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
The petitions said the Act selectively agrees to grant citizenship benefits to illegal migrants from only three countries. Besides the new law does not impose any requirement on illegal migrants to prove their claim of religious persecution or even a reasonable fear of it. The petitions have argued that the legislation effectuates discrimination on the basis of the intrinsic and core identity of an individual, that is, his religious identity as a Muslim. While Muslim migrants would have to show their proof of residency in India for at least 11 years, the law allows illegal migrants from the six communities to be naturalized in five years’ time.
