On December 11, 2019, the Parliament passed the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019 (hereinafter referred to as CAA) and received the assent of the President of India. The Parliament amended the Citizenship Act of 1955 to award citizenship to undocumented immigrants of religious minorities who are being persecuted in Islamic states like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, who entered India on or before December 31, 2014.

All practising Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis or Christians are eligible to claim citizenship under this Act. The law does not grant such eligibility to Muslims from these Islamic countries. Furthermore, the CAA also excludes Sri Lankan Tamil refugees who have lived in India since the 1980s and the Rohingyas. The Indian government used the filter of historic religious persecution, denial of human rights and torture inflicted on the minorities as a criterion for citizenship.

This particular Act does not take away the right to attain citizenship of India for the Muslim community of a foreign state; rather, this particular statute acts as a fast-track platform to award citizenship to those vulnerable minorities who are being persecuted in their own country.

The CAA is getting major backlash on the grounds that, firstly, it is discriminatory against individuals based on religion, noting that it excludes ‘Muslims’, despite India's status as a secular nation.

Secondly, critics raise concerns that the bill could be used with the National Register of Citizens (NRC) to render many Muslim citizens stateless. While the government has not rolled out the NRC nationally, concerns over statelessness are not baseless; such risks have materialized in regions like Assam where NRC implementation left many people, including Muslims, at risk of exclusion and legal limbo. This highlights genuine apprehensions from experts and rights groups.

Thirdly, critics ask the government, “Why does the law only help religious minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh but not from other places like Sri Lanka, or Myanmar, where people also face persecution?”

Fourthly, the opposition's point of view is that the Muslim groups, like the Hazaras (mostly Shia Muslims) and Ahmadis, who are being prosecuted, why aren't they given citizenship to these exploited communities?

Fifthly, the critics say that Article 14 of the Constitution, which promises equality to everyone, including foreigners, goes against India’s principle of treating all religions equally.

Lastly, there is a notion being spread that the parliament doesn't have the authority and is acting arbitrarily by implementing CAA, making it unconstitutional in nature.

Analysis

This particular Act does not discriminate against individuals on the basis of religion, according to the government’s stated view. The sole objective and criteria by which the government has implemented the CAA is the prevention of the persecution of minorities, giving human rights to exploited individuals who are denied such rights in their home countries and providing them with a safe haven in a secular state like India.

The second argument of the critics is that NRC, when implemented, will render Muslim citizens stateless. The government of India has not come up with a nationwide bill on this subject matter, but concerns over the NRC are rooted in precedent, as shown in Assam and elsewhere, where many people—including Muslims—have ended up at risk of statelessness due to document-related exclusions. Thus, these concerns are based on documented outcomes, not solely hypothetical scenarios.

Furthermore, the government has only included three specific nations, i.e., Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan, because of the non-secular mechanisms of these Islamic states. There are also historical reasons affiliated to the same, such as the partition of India-Pakistan, the 1971 Indo-Pak war which resulted in Bangladesh being carved out of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and the Taliban prosecuting minorities to the extent that more than 99 percent of Afghanistan now follows Islam. As for the exclusion of countries like Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Bhutan, Nepal and the People's Republic of China, these states are either secular in nature, religious persecution is claimed not to be present, and there exist ethnic, not religious, issues (like the Rohingyas). Sensitive diplomatic issues with respect to People's Republic of China have also influenced exclusion. Hence, the government of India has specifically mentioned these three countries and excluded the others.

The critics argue, “Muslim groups, like the Hazaras (mostly Shia Muslims) and Ahmadis, who are being prosecuted, why aren't they given citizenship?” The government’s rationale is that these issues are considered ethnic and not religious in nature, and the government of India does not differentiate between the various sub-classes of religious communities; for instance, Catholic Christians, Protestant Christians, Lutheran Christians, and Pentecostal Christians are considered one community, Christians. In a similar manner, Ahmadias, Shias, or Rohingya Muslims are considered one by the government of India, that is, Muslims.

As far as the constitutionality of CAA is concerned, critics say that this particular Act violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which states that “the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”. It is important to clarify that Article 14 applies to “all persons” (citizens and non-citizens alike), not just citizens. Furthermore, it is debated that the parliament doesn't have the right to make such a provision and is being arbitrary by passing such a resolution. The constitutionality of the CAA hinges on whether the law meets the tests of reasonable classification and rational nexus with its stated object of aiding persecuted religious minorities. Parliament's autonomy to make laws regarding citizenship under Article 11 is clear, but all laws must still comply with the rest of the Constitution, including Article 14 and its prohibition of arbitrary state action.

Conclusion

The CAA introduced by the government of India is within the ambit of the constitution as currently interpreted, but its constitutionality is under challenge in the Supreme Court. The law is intended to safeguard persecuted communities of the three mentioned countries (Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan), and the percentage of minorities in these respective countries has indeed depleted to a very low percentage compared to earlier demographics. Furthermore, this particular statute is not restricting Muslims from attaining citizenship; Muslims of various countries have the right to claim citizenship through the conventional legal means. They are only excluded from the fast-track process, which is available only for the minorities of these three respective countries, as they are deemed to be prosecuted and their very existence is considered to be in danger. Hence, this particular legislation by the government of India is seen by supporters as an appropriate and calculated decision to safeguard human rights, but its constitutional validity and implications remain subject to ongoing legal and constitutional scrutiny.

Refference