Author: Vaishnavi, University of Lucknow
To The Point
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) has emerged as one of the most controversial pieces of legislation enacted by the Indian Parliament in the 21st century. Although the law seeks to grant Indian citizenship to persecuted minorities from adjacent nations, it has raised significant constitutional issues and triggered widespread protests across the country. The law’s targeted strategy—granting citizenship exclusively to non-Muslim immigrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan—has sparked a legal and political upheaval. Critics claim it breaches Article 14 of the Indian Constitution and erodes the secular foundation of the country. In the northeastern states, notably Assam, Meghalaya, and Tripura, the CAA is perceived as a breach of the Assam Accord (1985) and a danger to native cultures.
This article explores the constitutional ramifications of the CAA, evaluates its alignment with India’s secular and federal structures, and investigates its legal viability considering recent Supreme Court actions and political changes.
Use of Legal Jargon
To guarantee a solid legal examination, the article includes various legal concepts and terminology, such as:
1. Rational classification – A constitutional standard applied under Article 14 to defend unequal treatment.
2. Random legislation – Laws without a logical foundation or inherently biased.
3. Basic structure doctrine – A rule that prevents Parliament from changing the essential elements of the Constitution.
4. Secularism – An essential element of the fundamental framework guaranteeing the fair treatment of every religion by the government.
5. Judicial review – The authority of courts to evaluate the legitimacy of legislative actions.
6. Naturalization – The official procedure for conferring citizenship upon foreign individuals.
7. Constitutional morality – The commitment to constitutional ideals rather than political convenience.
8. Federalism – Division of authority between the Union and the States.
9. Non-retrogression – A human rights concept that forbids backtracking from rights that have already been secured.
The Proof
1. Legal Framework and Revisions
The CAA modifies the Citizenship Act of 1955 by adding a clause to Section 2(1)(b), which exempts six groups—Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians—from classification as illegal migrants, as long as they arrived in India from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, or Pakistan prior to 31st December 2014. It further eases naturalization criteria for these groups by shortening the required residency duration from 11 years to 5 years as outlined in the Third Schedule.
Though this might seem like a humanitarian effort to assist religious minorities escaping persecution, the law’s targeted inclusion of non-Muslim groups from just three nations has raised concerns regarding its constitutionality. Why just these three countries? Why specifically these six faiths? These are essential questions that the government has not sufficiently addressed.
2. Discrimination and Article 14
The primary objection to the CAA is that it violates Article 14, which guarantees equality under the law and equal protection legally. Indian constitutional law, especially in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, has broadly interpreted Article 14 to prohibit the state from engaging in arbitrary conduct. The logical classification test requires that each classification:
Must be established on a clear distinction.
That distinction must have a logical connection to the aim of the law.
Critics contend that the CAA’s categorization based on religion and geography does not meet either requirement of this assessment. The law excludes Muslim minorities such as Ahmadis, Hazaras, and Rohingyas, while neglecting persecuted groups from nations like Myanmar (Rohingyas), Sri Lanka (Tamils), and Tibet (Buddhists), suggesting arbitrary categorization.
3. Infringement of Secularism
The Constitution, though it did not originally include the word “secular,” has consistently implied secular governance. The 42nd Amendment (1976) incorporated the term “secular” into the Preamble, affirming the State’s duty to treat all religions equally. In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognized secularism as a key component of the Constitution’s essential structure. The CAA, by distinguishing citizenship based on religion, arguably violates this secular principle.
4. Federal Issues in the Northeast
The enforcement of the CAA in Assam, Meghalaya, and additional Northeastern states has sparked intense agitation because of historical and demographic issues. The Assam Accord (1985), established between the Government of India and the All Assam Students Union (AASU), mandated that illegal immigrants arriving in Assam after 24th March 1971 would be identified and expelled.
The CAA goes against this Accord by allowing citizenship to those who entered the state by 31st December 2014, therefore:
Disregarding regional agreements that came from years of negotiations.
Changing the demographic composition, resulting in concerns about cultural and linguistic erosion.
5. Obligations under International Law and Human Rights
India may not be a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, but it is obligated under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). These tools prevent discrimination based on religion or ethnicity.
The non-refoulement principle, which prohibits sending persecuted individuals back to a country where they encounter significant danger, must be applied consistently rather than selectively. The CAA breaches these commitments by safeguarding only particular religious communities.
6. Supreme Court Proceedings and Awaiting Review
By June 2025, the Supreme Court of India has not issued its final ruling on the over 200 petitions against the CAA. The petitions have been combined by the Court and sent to a Constitution Bench. The postponement of judicial review has been termed “constitutional procrastination,” particularly since the rules for enforcement were announced in March 2024, even though the legal dispute was still under consideration.
Abstract
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) signifies a crucial legal evolution in India’s constitutional framework, engaging with discussions on religion, identity, equality, and federalism. Although the Act aims to provide citizenship to targeted minorities facing persecution from nearby Islamic countries, its religiously selective and geographically restricted nature has led to significant apprehensions regarding Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, along with the basic structure doctrine. The law presents difficulties for India’s secular image and jeopardizes regional pacts like the Assam Accord, thus disturbing the federal balance. As Supreme Court hearings progress and political tensions rise in the Northeast, the ultimate constitutional outcome of the CAA is still unsure. This piece examines these political and legal matters and highlights the necessity for a more inclusive refugee policy that adheres to constitutional standards.
Case Laws
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225
This landmark case established the basic structure doctrine, which holds that certain features of the Constitution, like secularism, cannot be altered by Parliament.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217
This case clarified the concept of reasonable classification under Article 14 and prohibited arbitrary discrimination.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1
The Court emphasized secularism as an essential feature of the Constitution and struck down any action violating this principle.
State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963 AIR 1241)
A key case emphasizing federalism, stating that both Centre and States are equally important units in the constitutional setup.
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) 2 SCC 556
Though not directly related to citizenship, this case underscores the conflict between religious personal laws and constitutional principles, relevant in assessing religion-based laws like the CAA.
Conclusion
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, although emphasizing humanitarian goals, presents significant constitutional and political challenges. The law’s exclusionary structure contradicts the ideals of equality, non-discrimination, and secularism. Its execution in the Northeast has raised valid worries about regional autonomy, settlement trends, and violations of established agreements such as the Assam Accord.
Although Parliament has the authority to legislate on citizenship, this authority must function within the limits of the Constitution. The upcoming decision of the Supreme Court will be crucial in deciding if the CAA withstands legal review or is modified to comply with constitutional requirements. Until that time, the law stands as not merely a legal matter but also a significant challenge to India’s democratic and secular nature.
FAQS
What is the core objective of the CAA?
The CAA intends to provide Indian citizenship to six designated religious minorities (not including Muslims) from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh who arrived in India prior to 31st December 2014.
Is the CAA applicable to all Indian states?
Yes, but certain areas in the Northeast (like parts of Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, and Mizoram) are exempt due to special provisions under the Inner Line Permit and Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.
Does the CAA alone lead to loss of citizenship for Indian Muslims?
No, the CAA does not affect existing Indian citizens. It is only about granting citizenship, not revoking it.
Can the CAA be challenged in court?
Yes, more than 200 petitions have been submitted to the Supreme Court contesting its constitutional validity, especially concerning Articles 14, 21, and 25.
Is the CAA in line with India’s international obligations?
Critics claim it breaches India’s commitments under international law by showing religious discrimination and overlooking persecuted communities such as Rohingyas and Ahmadis
