The Citizenship Act of 1955, which was designed for the purpose of acquisition and determination of Indian citizenship, traces its origins to the constitutional provisions of our country. The shift from the initially implemented Citizenship Act of 1955 by virtue of the 1986 and 2003 amendments signifies how India as a country is shifting towards a citizenship law from jus soli (citizenship by birth) to jus sanguinis (citizenship by descent). It has undergone multiple changes, but the amendment implemented by the NDA government has drawn the most flak from the opposition. It is a well-established fact that historically there has been continuous migration from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh into India. The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (“CAA, 2019”), provides a pathway to citizenship for refugees from these countries who have faced religious oppression, notably individuals belonging to the Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Christian, Parsi and Sikh communities, who migrated before December 31, 2014. Initially, migrants to India had a waiting period of up to 11 years. Now with the CAA 2019, migrants belonging to the above-mentioned category have only a waiting period of up to five years, and the categories of persons not mentioned in the amendment law do not have an opportunity to avail the fast-track process of obtaining citizenship.Nevertheless, the old laws shall still apply to the rest in the same manner as it was applied prior to the amendment. The amendment in question exempts in its application certain parts of Northeast India. Protesters however argue that the CAA violates the Assam Accord, exacerbating apprehensions about identity and culture. Additionally, critics contend that the Act discriminates against Muslims, deepening religious tensions and eroding India’s secular fabric.The proposed legislation also includes changes concerning Overseas Citizens Inda (OCI) cardholders. The CAA proposes modifications to the Act, allowing for the cancellation of OCI registration in case the individual breaches any laws specified by the central government, but after providing an opportunity to be heard as per principles of natural justice. The government said the Act was brought in for humanitarian reasons and to fulfil its commitment towards ensuring security to persons under threat of religious persecution. In that case, one needs to assess why nationwide protests broke out back in 2019 and then after the notification of the CAA rules in 2024. There are prevalent misconceptions regarding the citizenship of Indians, which are under no threat from the newly implemented law. The CAA is under heavy scrutiny by citizens of India and international stakeholders as discriminatory against a primary minority religion and persons who migrated to India due to threat of religious persecution post 2014. The protests and public upheaval against the Act cannot be understood in a uniform sense. Some opponents of the CAA have not realised that it does not apply to existing Indian citizens at all irrespective of their religion. Another key point is that CAA is not applicable to migrants who have entered India post 2014 regardless of their religion or faith. Critics argue that religious basis for citizenship is fundamentally flawed and violated the basic structure doctrine. CAA is largely misconstrued on the basis that it is supplementary to the National Register of Citizens, while the government has been clear that both are in no way connected. The NRC issue primarily concerned Assam due to the Assam Accord. Article 14 as envisioned by the drafters of the Constitution of India did not restrict the application only to citizens but to all persons. Speaking purely from a legal perspective, the government has discretionary powers to determine who gets citizenship as it is under their purview. In “Ganga Ram v. Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 377 [2]” Justice Sastri had said that the classification under Article 14 “need not be scientifically perfect or logically complete”. He has also suggested an underlying test of reasonableness and proportionality behind such exercise of power by the legislation. The Supreme Court in a plethora of cases has emphasised that the test must be applied taking into consideration practical realities and implication and not doctrinaire keeping in mind the virtues and values of the golden triangle.The amendment has been challenged by the Indian Union Muslim League (“Indian Union of Muslim League v Union of India WP (c) 1470/2019”) which was tagged with other petitions from individuals and political parties. The core contention of these petitions is its contravention of Article 14 as right to equality is not guaranteed to all persons. They contend that while the object sought is to grant citizenship to persons facing religious persecution, it has no rational nexus to the action sought by the law as it segregates people based on religion and country of origin and not based on those who are facing religious persecution. The matter is sub-judice before the Supreme Court. Moreover, there have been petitions filed in the apex court after the official notification of the CAA Rules. Finally, one needs to understand that India today after many efforts in the last decade has finally reached a position where it can lay down its own laws and policies without bothering about international pressure. Also, the issue of whether CAA is constitutionally valid or not is pending before the Supreme Court and hence further uproar and protests on the subject, especially by those who believe it takes away the rights of existing citizens, becomes a political or academic issue unless the protesters indicate they do not have faith in the apex court which would be very unfair. Lawmakers should be allowed to do their job and the courts theirs. Endless debates and controversies won’t take the nation ahead – we can’t afford it at this point when the Indian renaissance is at its peak with a strong economy and its global positioning having changed by leaps and bounds thanks to the strong diplomatic stands taken especially in the last five years. The government of the day is working round the clock to make up for the lost opportunities for India on the global stage to the best extent it can. Hence, let’s focus on progress and positives rather than getting entangled in debates which after the final court verdict may not hold much relevance.(Views are personal.)
Source link
