The Supreme Court is set to deliberate on March 19 regarding petitions to halt the implementation of the contentious Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019, and its recent rules, which expedite the process of granting Indian citizenship to non-Muslim migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan.
Pleas for Stay on CAA Operation
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), urged the Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, on March 15, to consider their plea for a stay on the CAA. The IUML, along with other petitioners, challenges the legality of the law, arguing that it discriminates on the basis of religion.
IUML’s Arguments Against CAA Rules
The IUML contends that the newly notified rules bypass crucial steps in the citizenship granting process, favoring specific religious communities and excluding others. Under the previous rules, the scrutiny involved multiple levels of authority, including District Collectors and State governments. However, the recent rules streamline the process, granting power to a District Level Committee, thereby sidelining state involvement.
Contentions on Rule Implementation
The IUML emphasizes the need for a comprehensive review of the CAA’s constitutionality before its implementation. They argue that if the Supreme Court deems the CAA unconstitutional, individuals granted citizenship under it would face a dilemma. Additionally, the party asserts that the law undermines the secular fabric of India by basing citizenship on religious lines.
Solicitor General’s Response
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, defended the early listing of the case, asserting it’s the prerogative of the court. He also challenged the locus standi of the petitioners to question the government’s authority on citizenship matters.
Final Deliberations
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear all 237 petitions on March 19, reflecting the urgency and significance of the matter. The decision on the CAA’s legality and the fate of its implementation awaits the court’s scrutiny. Until then, the debate over the law’s constitutionality continues to draw attention amidst the political landscape.