Author: Aishani Bhattacharjee, Bishop Cotton Women’s Christian Law College, Bengaluru
TO THE POINT
The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019 was formulated by the legislature of the country to amend the Citizenship Act, 1955. The main agenda behind the enactment of the law was to offer Indian citizenship to religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan who fled to India due to religious persecution before 31st December, 2014. The minority community who were eligible under said act included Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christian were the ones to get citizenship from the said act. The CAA was enacted keeping the notion to provide refuge to the aforementioned communities by recognizing their religion as the basis for persecution in countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. However, this act after coming into picture has created many controversies and widespread public protest as many argues that it doesn’t include the Muslim community as it would affect the secular nature of India another major opposition regarding the act was mainly dominated in North-Eastern state of Assam, where there are fears of an influx of illegal immigrants from countries like Bangladesh. The Assam Accord of 1985 was made to detect and expel illegal immigrants, and after CAA there was growing concern in the state that the act could alter the demographic balance of the region. This article will dig deeper into the protest and important impact of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 through the country.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
The legal jargons which aided in the interpretation of this statute and its implications in Indian society and the larger political and legal discourse. The term ‘citizenship’ in the citizenship amendment act, 2019 refers to the legal status of being a member of a nation, with specific rights and duties. In the context of CAA, the statute alters the eligibility criteria for acquiring Indian citizenship. ‘Religious Minorities’ this term in the act specifies the act was to apply to the non-Muslim religious minorities like the Parsis, Christians, and Jains who have religious persecutions. ‘Persecution’ in the context of the citizenship amendment act, 2019 is used to refer the demands for rights that the non-Muslim minorities had to give up in these three countries because they faced persecution. ‘Illegal immigrant’ refers to people who have entered or stayed in a country without any legal authorization. The CAA mainly provided a route for these people from those three countries to seek citizenship. ‘Religious Refugees’ under the act of 2019 the religious refugees were able to apply for citizenship through much less complicated and relaxed procedure as these were the people who seek refugee in India due to fear of persecution based on their religion. ‘Indian Citizenship Act, 1955’ the introduction of CAA modified mainly section 2, section 6 and few other provisions of Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 to grant citizenship to selected minorities under specific conditions. ‘Naturalization’ is a legal process through which a foreign national becomes a citizen to a particular country with the advent of CAA the waiting period for non-Muslim refugees has been reduced from 11 years to 5 years. The critics of CAA have mentioned time and again that this act has been discriminatory towards Muslim community and hence the act is inconsistent with the right to equality under Article 14 of the Indian constitution as the critics argued that it is discriminatory on the basis of religion and thereby affects secularism. ‘Infiltration’ in the act this term has been used to refer to people who entered into India without legal permission. This act aims to provide relief to minorities by distinguishing them from other illegal immigrants. ‘Exclusion’ and ‘Religious Profiling’ the term is used in the act to refer to the Muslim community who has been left out from the scope of the act and how the caa act has used religion as the criteria for selecting communities to give citizenship. ‘Judicial Review’ as the CAA act has been challenged in many courts for being unconstitutional this act too comes under the court’s power to review every law passed by the legislature.
THE PROOF
The citizenship amendment act of 2019 has been criticized for many reasons; one such criticism came from the Office of the United Nation High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) as the staunchly supported goal of protecting the persecuted communities should be non-discriminatory through a large -scale national asylum system. The National Register of Citizen (NRC) was another such aspect of the act which was in question as it was feared that this would render large numbers of Muslim citizens stateless, as because NRC required strict documentation requirements for birth and identity proof which might not be available with many people. Violent protests spurred in Assam as the provisions of CAA went against the Assam Accord. The protest in the state mainly happened as people of Assam had the fear that the new amendment would cause loss and disadvantage to the political, cultural rights and land rights for the people in the state. The protest was followed by total internet shutdown throughout the state by the state government. The India-Japan Summit was cancelled in Assam and countries like UK, USA, France, Israel and Canada issued travel warnings to maintain caution while traveling in the north-eastern region of India. In other parts of the country protest for the CAA mainly happened including Muslim immigrants under its ambit as Muslim minorities like the Hazars, Ahmadis too had to face persecution. Student protests broke out in institutions like Jamia Millia Islamia, Aligarh Muslim University etc and around 25 student associations joined in the protest. However, many such associations were even arrested by the police. The central government responded that the law was not discriminatory and there was no reason for fear and protest.
ABSTRACT
Even though there was protest all over regarding CAA right- wing groups like Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad had rallies in support of the amendment. Hindu refugees in Assam, living in the state since the 1960s who were denied citizenship, express their hope that with CAA, they would be granted citizenship in New Delhi as well 600 refugees from Pakistan living in camps. The new law was advantageous to them as well. A delegation of Sikh from Afghanistan who came to India decades ago too were happy for the coming of the new act. However, the Rohingya Muslim community were not very keen with the new act for fear of deportation. Even after these communities expressed positive attitude towards the act , many communities like the 58,000 Sri Lankan Tamil who have lived in India since the 1980s and religious minorities from regions like Tibet who had everything taken away by the communist Chinese government gained nothing from this act. The CAA could be considered a double-edged sword where it advantageous to one set of people as they faced constant religious and cultural threats and this act was formulated on a humanitarian ground that it would provide protection to the minority groups seeking asylum on the other hand the act also created large scale protest as the act was considered discriminatory and in certain parts of the country the advent of it would disrupt the socio-political fabric of the region. This article shed light on these intricacies of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 and how it affected the citizenship system of India and what followed.
CASE LAWS
All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) v. UOI (2020)- The case involved petitions that were mainly focused on the CAA’s effect on Assam particularly in contradiction with the Assam Accord. The petitioner’s main contention was that CAA was in conflict with the 1985 Assam Accord which had already the cut-off date for granting citizenship to migrants.
Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) V. UOI (2020)- The case was that CAA discriminated against Muslim and this case turned out to be a significant challenge to the constitutional validity of the CAA.
Agarwal, Shyam Sundar v. UOI (2020) – The petitioner in this case challenged CAA, where he sought to declare the law unconstitutional, arguing that it was discriminatory based on Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth)
S.R Bommai v. UOI (1994) – The case laid down essential principles regarding the secular nature of India. The case highlighted the constitutional mandate of secularism, and petitioners argued that CAA provides religious exception hence it violates this principle.
CONCLUSION
On March 11, 2024, the Ministry of Home Affairs officially made the announcement for the rules of Citizenship Amendment Act, and the Home Minister Amit Shah announced to notify them in 2024 general elections. On May 15th, 2024, the 14 migrants got the Indian citizenship certificates under CAA act in Delhi, nearly 2 months after the notification of CAA rules by the government. 350 people received Indian nationality digitally across India. However, a concern was shown by the other countries like Afghanistan claiming to have no persecuted minorities in the country while countries like Bahrain, Pakistan and Bangladesh express dissatisfaction towards the said act mainly for excluding the Muslim community and also called it unimportant. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) went on to the extent of issuing sanctions against Amit Shah and other key leaders for the CAA bill. The European Union’s Ugo Astuto expressed that CAA would be according to the constitutional standard of India. All these different views were surrounded when the CAA bill came into picture and still cases are being heard in the courts in relation to the act and yet the act changed the rules relating to acquiring Indian nationality and has raised many questions regarding its constitutionality and marginalization of Muslims. The call of the hour should be a balanced approach that ensures humanitarian assistance to the persecuted community and preservation of India’s pluralistic values.
FAQS
Why is the CAA controversial?
CAA became controversial as it excluded the Muslim community and according to many it adversely affected the notion of secularism mentioned in the constitution as it was considered discriminatory. Moreover, the National Register of Citizen (NRC) linked with CAA is also considered serious discrimination against Muslims.
What is the link between CAA and NRC?
As NRC was an exercise aimed at finding illegal immigrants in India under CAA. Critics argue that NRC was mainly done to discriminate against the Muslims as they would not be able to provide all the documents while the non-Muslims would be granted citizenship easily under the act.
Does CAA affect Indian citizens?
No, it does not affect the Indian citizens, however its implementations and the broader debate especially in relation to NRC, will likely continue to shape India’s citizenship laws and policies.
Is the CAA a violation of international human rights?
Critics have consistently pointed out CAA does violate international human rights standards by making a distinction based on religion. However, the Indian government maintains that the law is within its rights as a sovereign nation to provide protection to persecuted groups in and around.
How did the government deal with criticism surrounding the CAA?
The Indian government has time and again defended CAA that the last is an important humanitarian measure to protect certain communities who had faced constant threat to their life, culture and property. The government has also given assurance regarding the act that said act does not cause any adverse effect to the Indian Muslims and does aims to discriminate them. The scope of the act only applies to Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan and not any other refugees from other countries.
