While some people associated with the ruling party and government have announced that once the magic figure of 400 MPs is reached the Constitution will be amended, others have denied it. Regardless of this agenda, the dramatic pre-election announcement of the Rules under the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 as the fulfilment of a poll promise furthers the resolve of the government to undermine India’s constitutional secularism. Four years after the enactment of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, on the cusp of the announcement of the Lok Sabha polls, the Union government on Monday notified the Rules framed thereunder laying down the procedure for granting of citizenship under the Act.
The Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024, have given rise to celebrations on the one hand and calls for a stay of the implementation of the CAA 2019, pending the Supreme Court’s decision, on the other. Wisdom lies in staying the implementation of the Act since once citizenship is granted it is difficult to restore the status quo ante. Citizenship, after all, is the right to have rights — including the right to vote — which will have been exercised.
The CAA 2019 enables the grant of citizenship to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian “illegal immigrants” from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh who entered India on or before December 31, 2014. The Act excludes Muslims from its purview and thus discriminates against them based on their religion alone. It has been alleged in the public domain by the government that the Act is based on giving fast-track citizenship to persecuted persons, but there is no mention of persecution in the statute or Rules, nor is any proof of persecution called for by the Rules prior to conferment of citizenship.
The Constitution confers citizenship by way of birth, descent and migration, regardless of religion. The provisions are codified in Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. These Articles reflect the secular nature — a basic feature — of the Constitution. The Citizenship Act (1955) was enacted by Parliament to regulate the grant and termination of citizenship. The 1955 Act also does not make religion a criterion for the grant of citizenship. With the amendment and Rules, citizenship will be granted by naturalisation based on religion alone.
The Rules which have been notified list out a total of nine documents which can be submitted with the application to prove that the applicant is a national of Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan. There is no need to prove persecution, it is presumed! Entry 5 in Schedule IA says, “identity document of any kind issued by the Government of Afghanistan or Bangladesh or Pakistan or any other government authorities or government agencies in these countries would also suffice to prove nationality.”
Schedule IB lists a total of 20 documents to prove that the applicant has entered India on or before December 31, 2014. Any one of these will suffice to prove the claim. These include a copy of the visa and immigration stamp on arrival in India; registration certificate or residential permit issued by the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) or Foreigners Registration Officer (FRO) in India; slip issued by the Census enumerators in India; government-issued licence or certificate or permit in India (including driving licence, Aadhaar card, etc.); ration card of the applicant issued in India; any letter issued by the government or court to the applicant with official stamp; birth certificate of the applicant issued in India; marriage certificate, etc. One wonders whether the same liberal approach to proof of residence would be used for persons claiming to be Indian citizens when the National Register of Citizens (NRC) is prepared.
Apart from presuming persecution and liberalising proof of origin, the federal structure of administration has been centralised. Prior to these Rules, an application seeking citizenship was to be made to the district collector concerned. Now, the application of those seeking the benefit of the CAA is to be made to the empowered committee formed by the Union government.
The pending challenges to the CAA have pointed out that the Act violates Article 14 in that it denies equality before the law and equal protection of laws. It is worth recalling that Article 14 applies not just to citizens but to all persons. The CAA denies equal benefit of fast-track citizenship by registration or naturalisation to similarly placed Muslims. It also leaves out of consideration persons of nations other than those mentioned in the Act. The ostensible object of the CAA — to give benefits of citizenship to persecuted minorities in these three countries — seems like nothing more than a cover to favour Hindus since it is a known fact that in those very countries, Muslims belonging to different sects too are persecuted. There can be no presumption that the majority community will not persecute members of its own who dissent from the mainstream of politics. It is well known that the Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan are one the most persecuted minorities. Others have pointed out that the CAA 2019 does not extend the benefit of fast-track citizenship to persecuted minorities in neighbouring countries such as Myanmar and Sri Lanka, where the Rohingya and Tamils are persecuted minorities, respectively.
Protesters in Assam point out the internal contradictions in the law. For example, Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, grants citizenship to those who have migrated to Assam prior to March 24, 1971. With CAA, even those who came after 1971 but before December 2014 will be granted citizenship. It’s hugely ironic that as recently as January this year, the central government defended Section 6A in the Supreme Court while some local groups stoutly opposed it. Perhaps this was done in the mistaken belief that if the 1971 cut-off date is upheld, so will the 2014 date. But the cut-off of 1971 did not discriminate based on religion whereas the 2014 date does so.
While the policy of protecting persecuted persons is more than welcome, the solution is to grant them all refugee status, regardless of which religion they belong to. India must sign the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1961 to demonstrate its commitment to the persecuted and stop persecuting its own minorities. Failing this, the CAA will be seen as a project to establish a Hindu nation.
The writer is a former Additional Solicitor General of India
Instead of CAA, govt would do better to sign Geneva Convention on Refugees
9
32
13.03.2024
While some people associated with the ruling party and government have announced that once the magic figure of 400 MPs is reached the Constitution will be amended, others have denied it. Regardless of this agenda, the dramatic pre-election announcement of the Rules under the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 as the fulfilment of a poll promise furthers the resolve of the government to undermine India’s constitutional secularism. Four years after the enactment of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, on the cusp of the announcement of the Lok Sabha polls, the Union government on Monday notified the Rules framed thereunder laying down the procedure for granting of citizenship under the Act.
The Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024, have given rise to celebrations on the one hand and calls for a stay of the implementation of the CAA 2019, pending the Supreme Court’s decision, on the other. Wisdom lies in staying the implementation of the Act since once citizenship is granted it is difficult to restore the status quo ante. Citizenship, after all, is the right to have rights — including the right to vote — which will have been exercised.
The CAA 2019 enables the grant of citizenship to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian “illegal immigrants” from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh who entered India on or before December 31, 2014. The Act excludes Muslims from its purview and thus discriminates against them based on their religion alone. It has been alleged in the public domain by the government that the Act is based on giving fast-track citizenship to persecuted persons, but there is no mention........
© Indian Express
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
