Breaking: Supreme Court Refuses To Pass Any Order Staying Grant Of Citizenship Under CAA Till Hearing Of Pleas Fixed On April 9
The Supreme Court has adjourned pleas challenging the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) and Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024 to April 9 for the Centre to file its counter affidavit to applications for stay.
The Bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra directed that the proceedings be listed on April 9. The Bench refused to pass any interim order staying the grant of citizenship till then. The Bench also did not accede to the request to pass an order making the grant of citizenship subject to the outcome of the case.
Vehement submissions were made seeking a stay on the grant of citizenship till the next posting, which the court did not pass. The Solicitor General told the Court that attempts are being made to mix up the issue of NRC with the CAA and that the former is not an issue before the Court. He told the Court that the present law only permits the grant of citizenship.
At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Union submitted that there are 236 petitions challenging the CAA and that after the rules came, there are 20 IAs that have been filed for stay. "I need to file my reply. Everything will need to be collated. Three IAs I received yesterday late night. None of the petitioners as such are affected parties", he submitted.
The SG added that the new law "does not take away the citizenship of anyone. What is done is those who have migrated for the reasons mentioned in the Act....".
The CJI interrupted to say, "That is on merit". The SG also added that no new person is being given citizenship, referring to the 2014 cut-off date.
"If my learned friend is making a statement that no one will be given citizenship during the pendency, it can be recorded", Senior Advocate Indira Jaising submitted on behalf of a petitioner. The SG said that he is not willing to say that.
"They are entitled to say that give us a little time to file counter", the CJI said.
Submissions were then made on the application of law to Assam. The CJI then said that it is considering detagging the cases pertaining to Assam. Indira Jaising objected to detagging the cases relating to Assam.
The SG then submitted that he will require four weeks to file a counter affidavit.
"This notification has been issued after 4 years and 3 months. Under the law, the notification has to be issued within 6 months. Now they have issued the notification. If any process of citizenship starts and somebody gets citizenship, it will be impossible to reverse. Therefore, the process should not start. Under international law, once you grant citizenship, you can't take it back", Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted on behalf of a petitioner.
If they have waited till now, they can wait further, Sibal submitted, adding that the cases be listed immediately after the Holi vacation in April.
"We will give you two weeks time to reply and take it up on April 2", the CJI then said.
"236 petitions, most of which are not served. 20 IAs and more IAs are in the pipeline", the SG replied, adding that their counter was preliminary.
"Let him have time. But no citizenship till then", Jaising submitted.
The SG then submitted that granting citizenship is a lengthy process.
"I came here before 2014 because I was persecuted there. If I am granted citizenship how does it affect anyone?", Senior Advocate Ranjith Kumar submitted on behalf of an organisation of Hindus from Balochistan.
"They will get a right to vote", Indira Jaising replied.
The CJI then passed the order adjourning the matter.
On March 15, 2024, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal mentioned these matters before the Bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, the Court said, “We will replace the whole batch with the I.A.s so that nothing has left out there… we request all the lawyers who are appearing for diverse parties to ensure that may be one or two counsels make their submission because otherwise there will be overlapping record.”
Sibal submitted “We waited almost four years and three months and just before the elections they notified the Rules. Kindly, list the matter because if that process starts and the citizenship is granted it will be impossible to reverse it.”
The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) and Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI) had filed separate applications before the Supreme Court, both seeking directions to stay the implementation of Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024 which were notified on March 11, 2024, by the Central Government, alleging it to be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and unconstitutional, discriminatory and manifestly arbitrary. The Applications have been filed in the Writ Petitions, which are already pending before the Supreme Court, against the enactment of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019(CAA). Later on, the All Assan Students Union, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen Party Leader Asaduddin Owaisi, etc.
The DYFI in its Application had stated, “That present public interest writ petition raises a seminal important question related to the promulgation of Citizenship (Amendment), Act 2019, wherein first-time religion is introduced as a reference point/condition for acquisition of Indian Citizenship for illegal/undocumented migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Citizenship is being extended to certain a class of illegal/undocumented migrants belonging to the religion of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians coming from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Such classification on the basis of religious identity of the individual clearly violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Moreover, the classification based on the religious identity of the individual offends the fundamental principle of 'Secularism', which is enshrined as the basic structure of the Constitution.”
Muslim League in its Application had stated that the CAA is manifestly arbitrary for various reasons. It had stated, “Religion-based citizenship: The preamble of the constitution envisages that India is a secular country and therefore every law which is passed by the Parliament has to be religion-neutral. No law can be passed by the parliament if the basis of such a law is religion. This strikes at the root of the concept of Secularism which is the basic structure of the constitution. For this reason alone, the impugned Act is manifestly arbitrary.”
The State of Kerala had also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC and had sought a stay on the operation of the CAA and the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024. The State has contended in its application that it is now compelled to ensure compliance of the CAA and the Rules which are according to it unconstitutional. "It is submitted that with the coming to force of the CAA Rules, the persons who are became entitled for citizenship as per the impugned Act will apply for citizenship and the plaintiff State is now compelled to ensure compliance of Impugned Amendment Act and the Rules and Orders, which, it is submitted, are unconstitutional", says the State in its application.
The CAA was passed by the Parliament in 2019 amending the Citizenship Act, 1955. Proviso to Section 2(1)(b) states that migrants who belong to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Parsi, Jain and Christian religions from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh are eligible for citizenship by naturalization if they establish their residency in India for five years, instead of eleven years.
The implementation of the Act was temporarily extended due to nationwide protests against the Act, alleging it to be unconstitutional. In a significant development, on March 11, 2024, the Union Government notified the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024, which are in line with the 2019 CAA and provide for an online system for the applications, processing and grant of citizenship under CAA.
In October 2022 the Centre had urged the Supreme Court to dismiss pleas challenging the validity of the CAA stressing that the law does not encourage "illegal migration" in Assam or any future influx of foreigners in the country. It had also vehemently defended the exclusion of certain areas of Assam and other Northeastern states from the application of the CAA, saying it has been done to "protect the ethnic/linguistic rights" of the natives and this was "not discriminatory". It is a "focused law" that grants citizenship only to members of six specified communities who came on or before December 31, 2014, and does not affect the legal, democratic or secular rights of any Indian, the Ministry of Home Affairs said in a detailed 150-page affidavit.
Cause Title: Indian Union of Muslim League vs. Union Of India (W.P. (C) No. 1470/2019)
