Plea Against CAA Rules: A Standstill on Stay Application

Introduction

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA)[1] and its accompanying rules have emerged as a focal point of contention, sparking heated debates and legal challenges across India. Enacted in 2019, the CAA aims to provide expedited citizenship to specific religious minorities from neighboring countries who faced persecution. However, its selective inclusion criteria and perceived religious bias have drawn significant criticism, leading to several petitions and legal scrutiny.

At its core, the CAA underscores the tension between India’s commitment to secularism and its historical role as a safe haven for persecuted communities. The eligibility criteria, which notably exclude Muslims, have drawn sharp criticism, with critics alleging discrimination and a departure from India’s secular principles. On the other hand, proponents argue that the law is a humanitarian gesture aimed at providing refuge to those facing religious persecution.  The recent notification of the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024 (CAA Rules)[2] has further intensified the discourse, prompting a series of legal proceedings and a keenly awaited response from the judiciary.

Understanding the Recent CAA Rules

Background

• CAA aims to provide citizenship to specific religious minorities who faced persecution in neighbouring countries.
• The Act focuses on migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian communities.
• It presumes that these individuals faced religious persecution in their countries of origin and seeks to expedite their naturalization process in India by reducing it from 11 years to five.

Application Requirements

• To apply for Indian citizenship under the CAA, migrants from designated countries must meet specific criteria and provide necessary documentation.
• The requirements include proof of country of origin, religion, date of entry into India, and knowledge of an Indian language.

Eligible Religions and Countries

• The CAA extends eligibility to individuals belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian communities.
• These communities must have migrated to India from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, or Pakistan on or before December 31, 2014, to be considered for citizenship under the Act.

Proof of Country of Origin

• The CAA Rules significantly relax the documentation requirements.
• Acceptable documents include birth certificates, educational institution certificates, identity documents, licenses, certificates, land or tenancy records, or any other document issued by the countries of origin.
• Additionally, documents proving lineage to a citizen of one of the designated countries are also accepted.

Proof of Religion

• Documents accepted for proving country of origin can also establish the religion of the applicant.

Language Requirement

• The CAA Rules simplify the language proficiency requirement.
• The necessity of a certificate from an educational institution certifying knowledge of an Indian language has been removed.
• Now, a declaration of language proficiency and the ability to speak the language are deemed sufficient.

Establishing Date of Entry into India

• The Rules list 20 documents that serve as proof of entry into India, including visas, residential permits, census enumerator slips, government-issued documents, educational certificates, and utility bills.
• This relaxed approach contrasts with earlier requirements, which mandated a visa along with other documents.

Processing of Applications

• The responsibility for processing citizenship applications has been centralized.
• District collectors, who were previously involved in the process, are now bypassed in favor of centralized Empowered Committee and District Level Committees (DLCs) established by the Centre to receive and process applications electronically.
• Applications are made to the DLC electronically, with the Empowered Committee making the final decision.
• The Empowered Committee comprises officials from various government departments, while the DLC includes district-level officers and central government nominees.

Impact on States

• Despite opposition from some states, including Kerala and West Bengal, the central government’s control over the citizenship application process is emphasized.
• The establishment of Empowered Committees and DLCs effectively limits the role of state authorities in the process.

Legal Proceedings and Supreme Court’s Response

• Multiple petitions challenging CAA: Over 230 petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court since 2019 challenging the CAA on grounds of religious discrimination against Muslims and arbitrariness. Petitioners include political leaders and parties like Congress, IUML, AIMIM, TMC, RJD, and AASU.
• CAA legality under judicial review: The Centre’s affidavit in October 2022 argued that CAA’s legality may not be reviewed by courts as citizenship and foreign policy fall under Parliament’s domain. It asserted that challenges through Public Interest Litigation (PIL) are not valid in matters of sovereign plenary power.
• Stay on CAA and CAA rules sought: Petitioners including IUML, AIMIM chief Owaisi, Kerala government, and Assam Congress leader Debabrata Saikia filed applications seeking a stay on both CAA and the newly notified CAA rules. They argued that CAA is discriminatory and delaying implementation would not harm anyone as the rules took four years to be notified after the Act’s passage. Granting citizenship now would be irreversible if the court finds CAA unconstitutional.
• Supreme Court’s response on stay: The Supreme Court on March 19, 2024, refused to grant an interim stay on CAA and the CAA Rules. However, it directed the Centre to respond to the stay applications by April 9, 2024. The court noted the Centre’s argument that petitioners wouldn’t be impacted as the CAA doesn’t take away citizenship.
• Arguments during the hearing: Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, and Indira Jaising argued for the petitioners. Sibal expressed concern about citizenship being granted before the final court decision, highlighting its irreversible nature. Jaising requested the Centre to undertake not to grant any citizenship until the next hearing. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, opposed the stay and undertaking, arguing that the CAA doesn’t affect the petitioners and citizenship is not being taken away.

Analysis and Implications

The recent notification of CAA rules in India has reignited the debate on the law’s legality and its implications. While the Modi government views it as fulfilling a promise to the persecuted minorities, critics argue it blatantly discriminates against Muslims. The upcoming Supreme Court hearing on April 9th will be crucial. Petitioners challenging the CAA argue that granting citizenship under the current rules would be irreversible if the court finds the law unconstitutional.

The Centre, on the other hand, maintains that CAA does not affect petitioners and is simply a mechanism for citizenship, not a removal of rights. This legal battle hinges on whether the Court considers CAA’s religious criterion a violation of India’s secular fabric and fundamental right to equality. The outcome will have significant implications for national identity, social harmony, and potential strain on ties with Muslim-majority neighbors. It will also be keenly watched by international observers regarding India’s commitment to religious pluralism.

Conclusion

The ongoing legal matter surrounding the CAA and its accompanying rules represents a crucial moment in India’s socio-political landscape. The divergent perspectives on the CAA’s constitutionality underscore deep-seated differences regarding religious identity, secularism, and constitutional principles. As the Supreme Court deliberates on the validity of the CAA and the stay applications, the outcome will have far-reaching implications. Beyond the legal realm, the resolution of this issue will shape India’s national identity and international relations. Moreover, it presents an opportunity for India to reaffirm its commitment to secularism and pluralism while addressing legitimate concerns regarding persecuted minorities.

[1] https://indiancitizenshiponline.nic.in/Documents/UserGuide/E-gazette_2019_20122019.pdf.

[2] https://indiancitizenshiponline.nic.in/UserGuide/E_gazette_11032024.pdf.