The battle to decide the Constitutional validity of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) will now be fought in the Supreme Court. The SC on Wednesday issued notice to the Centre but refused to stay the operation of the Act.
The court sought response of the Centre by the second week of January next year on a batch of pleas challenging the CAA. The court also said the arguments on granting stay can be advanced on January 22, the next date of hearing.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice SA Bobde and Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant fixed 59 petitions, including those filed by the Indian Union Muslim League and Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, for hearing on January 22, next year.
Several petitions have been filed challenging the Act. The petitioners, including by RJD leader Manoj Jha, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, All Assam Students’ Union (AASU), Peace Party, CPI, NGOs ‘Rihai Manch’ and Citizens Against Hate.
After several Opposition MPs, including well-known lawyers P Chidambaram and Kapil Sibal, questioned the constitutional validity of the CAA and said it cannot stand the scrutiny of law, it was widely expected that SC will have to adjudicate on the subject.
During the hearing, some lawyers appearing for petitioners sought a stay on the operation of the newly amended law.
One of the lawyers, appearing for a petitioner hailing from Assam, said, “Let it not be implemented... Five students in the North-East have died.”
The Attorney General opposed the submission and said there are as many as four judgments which have held that a law cannot be stayed after being notified. “We are not going to grant a stay,” the Bench said, adding that arguments on granting stay can be advanced on January 22, the next date of hearing.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who represented one of the parties, however, said there was no need to seek the stay on the operation of CAA as it has not come into force as several things like framing of rules under the law are yet to be done.
Another senior advocate Kapil Sibal agreed with Dhavan’s submission and said, “We have nothing to say right now”.
The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), one of the petitioners who has challenged the CAA, said in its plea that it violates the fundamental Right to Equality and intends to grant citizenship to a section of illegal immigrants by making an exclusion on the basis of religion.
Parliament recently cleared the Act, which grants citizenship rights to religious minorities such as Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Parsis, Jains and Buddhists, who have come to India on or before December 31, 2014.
President Ram Nath Kovind gave assent to the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 on December 12, turning it into an Act.
The plea by IUML, filed through advocate Pallavi Pratap, seeks an interim stay on the operation of CAA and the Foreigner Amendment (Order), 2015 and Passport (Entry Into Rules), Amendment Rules, 2015.
The petition alleged that the Government’s CAA was against the basic structure of the Constitution and intended to explicitly discriminate against Muslims as the Act extended benefits only to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians.
The plea filed by Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, has said that the Act is a “brazen attack” on core fundamental rights envisaged under the Constitution and treats “equals as unequal”.
In his petition, Ramesh has said that substantial questions of law, including whether religion can be a factor to either acquire or deny citizenship in India, arises for consideration of the court as it is a “patently unconstitutional” amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955.
“The impugned Act creates two classifications, viz, classification on basis of religion and the classification on the basis of geography and both the classifications are completely unreasonable and share no rational nexus to the object of the impugned Act i.e., to provide shelter, safety and citizenship to communities who in their native country are facing persecution on grounds of religion,” the plea has said.