Author: Kshiraj R, RV University, Bangalore
To the Point
In 2024, after four years of protests, petitions, and political back and forth, the Central Government finally notified the long-awaited Rules for the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA). This allowed the law which was passed in 2019 to be implemented. The CAA fast-tracks Indian citizenship for persecuted religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan namely Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians who entered India before December 31, 2014.
While the government insists it’s a humanitarian law, critics argue it violates the secular ethos of the Constitution and creates a hierarchy of citizenship based on religion. In this article, we examine whether the CAA and its Rules are a compassionate rescue mission or a cleverly cloaked constitutional U-turn.
Use of Legal Jargon
The CAA 2019 triggers complex constitutional debates involving Article 14 (equality before law), Article 15 (non-discrimination on grounds of religion), Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and Article 25 (freedom of religion). From a constitutional lens, the Act raises questions of “reasonable classification” under Article 14 and whether this classification satisfies the twin tests of intelligible differentia and rational nexus. It also runs up against the basic structure doctrine by potentially undermining the secular fabric of the Indian Constitution a foundational feature recognized in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225 (India).
When we look at the debate is the principle of non-refoulement an international more like a norm type law that prohibits the return of refugees to a country where they may face harm. While India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, but when we look at it generally upheld this norm. However, the CAA may inadvertently institutionalize religious profiling, when read side by side plans for a National Register of Citizens (NRC).
The Proof
When the CAA was enacted in 2019, it sparked widespread protests both at home and abroad. Over 140 petitions challenging its constitutional validity are still pending before the Supreme Court. The government argued that the Act is a narrow intervention, meant to offer fast-track naturalization to religious minorities who face persecution in Islamic countries. The requirement: proof of religion, country of origin, and arrival before 31 December 2014.
The 2024 Rules now detail the procedure: applicants must upload documents through a dedicated portal and may be subject to district-level scrutiny. However, there is no requirement to prove persecution just a self-declaration of religious identity and entry timeline. Meanwhile, no such provision exists for similarly persecuted groups like the Rohingya from Myanmar or Ahmadiyya’s from Pakistan.
Critics note that the Act, when paired with NRC initiatives, could effectively render Muslim migrants (or even undocumented Indian Muslims) vulnerable to statelessness. Amnesty International and UN experts have raised concerns about the law violating international obligations and fostering discrimination. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the law’s constitutionality making it one of the most significant pending constitutional matters in modern Indian history.
Abstract
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 and its implementation rules (2024) we can see a shift in India’s citizenship jurisprudence from jus soli (right of the soil) toward a selectively religious jus sanguinis (right of blood). While the stated objective is to protect persecuted religious minorities from neighbouring countries, the law’s explicit exclusion of Muslims and its intersection with potential NRC implementation raises constitutional concerns under Articles 14, 21, and the secular structure. This article examines the legal architecture of the CAA, explores comparative refugee law, and analyses whether the law serves as a narrow humanitarian carve-out or a backdoor to exclusionary citizenship.
Case Laws and International Standards
Judicial precedents and international legal standards have consistently underscored the constitutional guarantees of equality, secularism, and human dignity principles that are central to evaluating the legality and legitimacy of citizenship laws and state policies concerning refugees and minorities.
In the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225, the Supreme Court established the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution does not extend to altering its fundamental features. Among these core features are secularism, the rule of law, and the guarantee of fundamental rights, which serve as a constitutional bulwark against any majoritarian or discriminatory state action.
In State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75, where the Court emphasized that any classification under Article 14 must be based on an intelligible differentia and have a rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved. This judgment is frequently cited to test whether legislation discriminates arbitrarily or disproportionately targets certain groups an essential lens when examining the structure of citizenship laws.
In Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1, the Supreme Court struck down instant triple talaq, holding that religious or personal law practices cannot override fundamental rights. While the case dealt with gender equality, its broader constitutional message was clear: no personal or religious norm can operate outside the purview of constitutional scrutiny, especially where the State is involved.
Further affirming the universality of fundamental rights, National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (1996) 1 SCC 742, dealt with the protection of Chakma refugees facing hostility and expulsion. The Court held that Article 21 extends to all persons, including non-citizens, thereby reinforcing the idea that the right to life and dignity is not dependent on nationality or legal status.
In Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556, the Court ruled that personal law cannot override constitutional rights, particularly when it comes to gender justice under Articles 14 and 21. Though not directly linked to citizenship, the case has been pivotal in framing the conversation on constitutional secularism and state neutrality in matters of religion and personal identity.
On the international front, while India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, courts have increasingly referred to the UNHCR Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (2004) and principles of Customary International Humanitarian Law in shaping India’s obligations toward displaced persons and asylum seekers. These norms emphasize non-discrimination, non-refoulement, and access to basic human rights regardless of legal status. Although not binding, they are influential in judicial reasoning and administrative policy.
Conclusion
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 with its 2024 Rules offers a fast-track to Indian citizenship but only to select groups. While humanitarian in intent, its exclusion of Muslims raises serious constitutional and ethical concerns. By tying religion to citizenship, the law may erode the secular foundation of Indian democracy. Moreover, its potential interplay with the NRC poses a risk of disenfranchisement for vulnerable populations.
As the Supreme Court deliberates on the pending constitutional challenges, the Act stands at a legal and moral crossroads. If inclusivity and equality are to remain more than decorative preambles, India must balance compassion with constitutional consistency. Otherwise, our citizenship regime may end up looking like an exclusive club where the bouncers check your religion at the door.
FAQS
Q1. Does the CAA grant citizenship to anyone who is Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian from Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Bangladesh?
Yes, but only if they arrived in India before 31 December 2014 and can provide documents proving origin, religion, and date of entry.
Q2. Why are Muslims excluded from the CAA?
The government argues that since the three specified countries are Islamic states, Muslims are unlikely to face religious persecution there. Critics argue that this is an oversimplification and violates Article 14.
Q3. Is the CAA connected to the NRC?
Technically, they are separate. But if implemented together, NRC could require proof of citizenship and those excluded may not benefit from the CAA’s fast-track provisions.
Q4. Is the CAA unconstitutional?
That’s the billion-rupee question. Over 140 petitions are pending before the Supreme Court. The primary challenge is based on violation of Article 14 (equality) and secularism as part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
Q5. Is India violating international law by enacting the CAA?
While India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, international experts argue that the CAA goes against the principle of non-discrimination and non-refoulement, which are considered customary international law.
References
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225 (India).
Amnesty International, “India: CAA Implementation Raises Alarming Questions,” March 2024, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/03/india-caa-rules-implementation/.
UN Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues, “Statement on India’s Citizenship Law,” Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), March 2024.
