Author : Vanshika Verma College : University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU
To the Point
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) marks a significant shift in India’s citizenship framework by introducing religion as a criterion for granting Indian nationality. It expedites citizenship for Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, but excludes Muslims and persecuted communities like Rohingyas and Ahmadiyyas.
This exclusion has triggered widespread constitutional and legal debate. Critics argue that the Act violates Article 14 (right to equality) and secularism, a core part of the Basic Structure Doctrine. The lack of a comprehensive refugee policy, coupled with fears of linkage between the CAA and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), raises serious concerns of discrimination, statelessness, and arbitrary exclusion.
Abstract
The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA) has emerged as one of the most debated legislative enactments in recent Indian legal history. Enacted with the stated objective of granting citizenship to persecuted religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, the CAA offers fast tracked citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians, while excluding Muslims and other non-specified persecuted groups such as Rohingyas, Ahmadiyyas, and Hazaras. This article critically examines the legal and constitutional implications of the CAA through the lens of Article 14 (equality before the law), the Basic Structure Doctrine, and international refugee law principles such as non-refoulement. It highlights the Act’s religious and geographical exclusions, its conflict with India’s secular identity, and the absence of a comprehensive refugee protection framework. The potential interplay between the CAA and the National. Register of Citizens (NRC) is also explored, revealing fears of statelessness, discrimination, and arbitrary detention.
Keywords: Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, Secularism, Article 14, Refugee Rights, NRC, Discrimination, Basic Structure, International Law, Religious Exclusion, Rohingya.
Use of legal jargon
The following legal jargon are central to understand the core issues of the CAA debate:
- Basic Structure Doctrine
A judicial principle that certain fundamental features of the Constitution such as secularism, equality, and federalism that cannot be altered or destroyed by any amendment under Article 368. The CAA is alleged to violate secularism, a non-amendable element of the Constitution.
- Reasonable Classification
Under Article 14, the state can make classifications, but they must be non-arbitrary, based on intelligible differentia, and must have a rational nexus to the objective sought. The CAA selectively includes specific religious groups while excluding others without clear justification, raising concerns of arbitrariness.
- Non-Refoulement
An international law principle (from refugee law) that forbids returning a person to a country where they face persecution. It is recognised as customary international law, binding even on non-signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention. The CAA fails to protect several vulnerable groups like Rohingyas, violating this humanitarian standard.
- Ultra Vires
A latin term meaning “beyond the powers”. A law is said to be ultra vires if it exceeds the authority conferred by the Constitution. Petitions has argue that CAA is ultra vires the constitution as it violates Article 14 and Basic Structure norms.
- Article 14
Ensures equality before law and protection of laws to all persons (citizens and non-citizens). The exclusion of Muslims and certain refugees under the CAA is alleged to violate this right.
- Article 21
Provides that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty except according to procedure established by law, which must be just, fair, and reasonable. CAA linked NRC fears raise concerns about detention, deportation, and statelessness affecting life and liberty.
- Written Jurisdiction (Article 32 & 226)
Allows individuals to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 and the High Court under Article 226 for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Petitioners have invoked these Articles to challenge the constitutionality of the CAA.
Case Laws
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225
Established the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that Parliament cannot amend the constitution to destroy its core elements features of secularism, rule of law, and equality being among them. By introducing religion-based Citizenship, CAA is argued to undermine secularism, which is part of the Basic Structure and thus unconstitutional.
- Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (Mandal Commission Case) 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217
Permits reasonable classification under Article 14 but prohibits arbitrary, excessive, or religion-based exclusion unless clearly justified. The exclusion of certain persecuted minorities (e.g. Rohingyas, Ahamadiyyas) fails the test of reasonable classification, as there is no objective justification for excluding them.
- National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996) 1 SCC 742
The court protected Chakma refugees, ruling that even foreigners are entitled to the right to life and liberty under Article 21, and cannot be arbitrarily evicted or discriminated against. Demonstrated that refugees are entitled to fundamental rights, and the State cannot treat them unfairly or discriminatory, irrespective of their religion.
- Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) 2 SCC 556
Though about maintenance, this case reiterated the principle that personal law cannot override constitutional guarantees, especially secularism and equality. The case supports the view that State policies should not be influenced by religion, aligning with the critique of CAA as a religiously driven law.
Conclusion
The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, while framed as a humanitarian gesture, reveals deep legal and constitutional flaws when scrutinized through the lens of equality, secularism, and refugee protection. By selectively offering Citizenship based on religion and geography, the Act undermines Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees Equality before the law, and threatens secularism, a cornerstone of the Basic Structure Doctrine. The exclusion of persecuted groups such as Rohingyas, Ahmadiyyas, and Hazaras, and the absence of a comprehensive refugee protection law, create systematic gaps that can lead to statelessness, discrimination, and arbitrary treatment. This becomes even more concerning when linked to proposals like the National Register of Citizens (NRC), which could disproportionately affect minorities lacking documentary proof. To remain true to its constitutional values and international standing, India must reform its Citizenship and refugee policies. This includes amending the CAA to remove religious filters, enacting a uniform refugee law and ensuring that all future policies are inclusive, rights-based, and transparent. Only by aligning its laws with constitutional morality, international obligations, and humanitarian values can India reaffirm its identity as a democratic, secular, and just nation committed to protecting the dignity of all individuals regardless of their faith or origin.
FAQs
Ques 1: What is Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA)?
Ans: The Citizenship Amendment Act is a legislative amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1995, which provides a fast – tracked pathway to Indian citizenship for members of six religious minorities of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, provided they entered India before 31st December 2014. It explicitly excludes Muslims from these benefits.
Ques 2: Does the Citizenship Amendment Act apply to all refugees and persecuted communities?
Ans: No, the Citizenship Amendment Act applies only to specific religious minorities from three neighbouring countries. It excludes several persecuted groups, such as Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar, Ahamadiyyas and Shias from Pakistan and Hazaras from Afghanistan. Other asylum seekers or refugees from different countries are also excluded.
Ques 3: Why is the Citizenship Amendment Act criticized as discriminatory?
Ans: The Citizenship Amendment Act introduces religious classification into India’s Citizenship framework, violating the principle of equality before law under Article 14 of the Constitution. By excluding Muslim refugees and other marginalized groups, the Act raises concerns of religious discrimination, erosion of India’s secular character and violation of international human rights obligations.
Ques 4: Does the Citizenship Amendment Act affect existing Indian citizens?
Ans. The Citizenship Amendment Act does not alter the citizenship status of current Indian citizens, irrespective of religion. However, its link to the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC) has fueled fears of discrimination, statelessness, and disenfranchisement, particularly among minority communities.
Ques 5. However does the Citizenship Amendment Act impact India’s global image?
Ans. The Citizen Amendment Act has attracted international criticisms, with concerns raised by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR), Global human rights organizations and foreign governments.
