Author: Abhinav Mishra, a student at Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University
Abstract
The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019, alongside the proposed implementation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC), has emerged as one of the most contentious legal developments in post-independence India. While ostensibly framed to protect religious minorities facing persecution in neighboring countries, the CAA introduces religious classifications that directly challenge the secular and egalitarian ethos enshrined in the Constitution. The proposed NRC, with its implications for verifying citizenship through documentary evidence, further intensifies fears of exclusion, discrimination, and statelessness. This article delves into the constitutional challenges posed by the CAA and NRC, focusing on the scrutiny they have undergone under Articles 14 and 21. It examines legal doctrines, judicial pronouncements, and ongoing litigation while contextualizing the social and political ramifications of these legislative measures.
To the Point
The CAA amends the Citizenship Act, 1955, by offering a fast-tracked naturalization process to illegal migrants belonging to six non-Muslim religious communities (Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians) from three Muslim-majority countries (Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan). The cut-off date for eligibility is December 31, 2014. Notably, the law excludes Muslims, thereby introducing a religion-based criterion into Indian citizenship law for the first time.
Simultaneously, the NRC—an official record of legal Indian citizens—has been implemented in Assam and is proposed to be rolled out nationwide. The NRC demands extensive documentation to prove one’s lineage and residence, raising concerns about the disenfranchisement of economically and socially marginalized communities, particularly when combined with the protections selectively offered by the CAA.
Together, these measures raise serious questions about constitutional morality, particularly in relation to Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The petitions before the Supreme Court argue that the CAA violates the constitutional guarantees of secularism, equality, and non-discrimination, while the NRC process jeopardizes the right to life with dignity by creating the risk of statelessness.
Use of Legal Jargon
Citizenship by Naturalization: A legal process through which a non-citizen acquires citizenship by fulfilling conditions laid down in law.
Reasonable Classification: A doctrine under Article 14 that allows classification if it is based on intelligible differentia and bears a rational nexus with the objective sought.
Manifest Arbitrariness: A judicial standard allowing the invalidation of laws that are irrational or unreasonable.
Secularism: A basic feature of the Constitution implying state neutrality in matters of religion.
Writ Jurisdiction: The power of the High Courts and Supreme Court to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 226 and 32 respectively.
Natural Justice: The principle of fairness in legal proceedings.
Doctrine of Basic Structure: A principle asserting that certain foundational constitutional values cannot be altered by legislative amendment.
The Proof
Legislative Background of the CAA
The Citizenship Act, 1955 governed the acquisition and termination of Indian citizenship. Prior to 2019, it made no distinction based on religion. The CAA, 2019, however, altered this secular fabric by introducing religious-based criteria for granting citizenship. The law specifically fast-tracks the naturalization of individuals from certain religious communities who have faced alleged persecution in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh.
While the government justifies the exclusion of Muslims on the basis that these are Muslim-majority nations and hence Muslims are unlikely to be persecuted on religious grounds, critics argue this logic is flawed. Intra-Muslim sects like Ahmadiyyas and Shias, and atheists, face religious persecution but are excluded. Similarly, persecuted minorities in neighbouring countries such as the Rohingyas from Myanmar or Tamils from Sri Lanka are also not included.
Constitutional Challenges
Article 14: Right to Equality
Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws. The Supreme Court has held in numerous cases that this right is violated when a classification is arbitrary or lacks a reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved. In the context of the CAA, petitioners argue that:
The classification based on religion is not intelligible.
There is no rational nexus between the objective of protecting persecuted minorities and excluding certain groups based on religion.
The law fails the test of reasonable classification and is manifestly arbitrary.
Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Article 21 ensures that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The implementation of NRC, especially without clarity and safeguards, risks the disenfranchisement of millions. Those excluded may face indefinite detention or be rendered stateless, violating the right to live with dignity.
Furthermore, the procedural vagueness in NRC implementation—lack of clear documentation requirements, inconsistent application across states, and the absence of legal aid—heightens the risk of due process violations.
Secularism and the Basic Structure Doctrine
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court held that secularism is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The use of religion as a basis for citizenship challenges this core principle. Unlike in previous regimes where citizenship laws were religion-neutral, the CAA marks a departure that arguably undermines India’s pluralistic constitutional identity.
NRC Implementation: The Assam Experience
The NRC process in Assam led to the exclusion of over 1.9 million people. The process required individuals to furnish legacy documents proving their lineage and presence in Assam before March 24, 1971. Many individuals, particularly women and marginalized communities, lacked such documentation due to poverty, illiteracy, and displacement. The legal recourse—appeals before Foreigners Tribunals—proved to be opaque and inconsistent.
If a similar process is implemented nationwide, the scale of potential exclusion could be catastrophic, especially in states with poor documentation infrastructure. The fear is that the CAA, by selectively protecting only certain religious groups, may shield some while exposing others—especially Muslims—to potential detention and statelessness.
Case Laws
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
Reaffirmed the principle of reasonable classification under Article 14. The case underscored that classifications cannot be arbitrary and must have a clear rational nexus.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
Extended Article 14’s protection to LGBTQ individuals, emphasizing that equality includes dignity and respect for identity.
Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)
Introduced the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness as a ground to invalidate legislation under Article 14.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Expanded the interpretation of Article 21 to include the right to live with dignity, personal liberty, and procedural fairness.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Recognized secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution, holding that the state must remain neutral in religious matters.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine and enshrined secularism as a non-negotiable constitutional value.
Conclusion
The CAA and NRC, in their current forms, represent a potential rupture in the secular and inclusive spirit of the Indian Constitution. While citizenship policy remains the prerogative of the legislature, its exercise must conform to constitutional principles of equality, non-discrimination, and procedural fairness. The exclusive nature of the CAA, when coupled with the documentary rigors of NRC, creates a situation where the burden of proof falls disproportionately on marginalized communities.
The Supreme Court’s final verdict on the constitutionality of the CAA will be pivotal. It must navigate the complex interplay between legislative intent, constitutional morality, and India’s pluralistic ethos. Until then, the legal and moral debates over citizenship, identity, and nationhood continue to shape the Indian democratic discourse.
FAQS
Q1. Does the CAA take away anyone’s existing citizenship?
No, the CAA does not revoke any existing citizenship. It offers a pathway for naturalization to certain religious minorities from neighboring countries.
Q2. Why is the CAA considered discriminatory?
It provides citizenship benefits based on religion, excluding Muslims, thereby violating the secular character and equality guaranteed by the Constitution.
Q3. How does NRC affect Indian citizens?
NRC requires individuals to prove their citizenship through documentation. Those unable to do so may face exclusion, leading to denial of basic rights and even detention.
Q4. What legal recourse is available to those excluded from NRC?
They can appeal to Foreigners Tribunals. However, access to legal aid, fair hearings, and consistent standards remain challenges.
Q5. Has the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the CAA?
As of now, the Court has admitted over 200 petitions and issued notices but has not delivered a final verdict.
Q6. Is secularism still a part of Indian law?
Yes, secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be altered by legislation.
Q7. Does the CAA apply uniformly across India?
Certain regions under the Sixth Schedule and the Inner Line Permit regime are exempt from CAA’s application.
Q8. Can the CAA be challenged in international forums?
While international organizations may raise concerns, citizenship laws fall under the sovereign domain of a nation and are generally outside the jurisdiction of international courts unless gross human rights violations are established.