Rules Notified for Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019

General Studies Paper -2

Context: The Ministry of Home Affairs notified the Citizenship Amendment Rules under the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) which was enacted in December 2019.

Background

• In December 2019, Parliament passed an amendment to The Citizenship Act, 1955,to include a provision for grant of citizenship to migrants belonging to the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian communities who entered India before December 31, 2014 from Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Bangladesh.
• The law was notified on January 10, 2020 amidst protests around the country, particularly in Assam, but could not be implemented in the absence of the Rules.
• On May 28, 2021, the Union government issued an order under Section 16 The Citizenship Act, 1955, giving district collectors in 13 districts with high migrant populations the power to accept citizenship applications from groups identified in the 2019 amendment.

Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019

• It seeks to fast-track Indian citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians– with the exception of Muslims – who migrated to India owing to religious persecution in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. 
• In essence, the 2019 amendment relaxed the eligibility criteria for certain classes of migrants (on religious lines) from three neighbouring Muslim-majority countries.
• Exemption: Certain categories of areas, including tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura, and areas protected by the ‘Inner Line’ system, were exempted from the purview of the CAA.
• The concept of Inner Line separates the tribal-majority hills of the Northeast from the plains areas. To enter and stay in these areas, an Inner Line Permit (ILP) is needed.

Issues/Challenges

• The legal challenge: The 2019 amendment was challenged before the Supreme Court in 2020 by the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) and others, on the grounds of discrimination.
• The right to equality: The challenge to the CAA rests on the ground that it violates Article 14of the Constitution, which says that “the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”.
• The petitioners’ argue that using religion as a qualifier or a filter violates the fundamental right to equality.
• Targeted towards Muslims:The petitioners have argued that the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam to identify illegal immigrants, along with the CAA, will result in the targeting of Muslims.
• Secularism: There is also the larger issue of whether making religion a ground for eligibility for citizenship violates secularism, which is a basic feature of the Constitution.
• Section 6A of The Citizenship Act, 1955 and Assam:Section 6A was introduced in the Citizenship Act after the signing of the Assam Accord in 1985 which determines who is a foreigner in the state of Assam and sets March 24, 1971 as a cut off date which contradicts the cut off date given in the CAA 2019.
• Widespread protests: The protest in Assam and other northeastern states turned violent over fears that the move will cause a loss of their “political rights, culture and land rights” and motivate further migration from Bangladesh.

Government’s stand

• The government has said that Muslims have been excluded from the group of “persecuted” minorities because Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh are Islamic countries where Muslims are in majority. 
• However, it will be tested whether these three countries were picked essentially to keep Muslims out — this is because groups like Tamil Hindus in Sri Lanka, the Rohingya in Myanmar, or minority Muslim sects like Ahmadiyyas and Hazaras are also persecuted minorities in these countries.

What lies ahead?

• The court will have to look into two issues:
• Whether the special treatment given to the so-called “persecuted minorities” from the three Muslim-majority neighbouring countries only is a reasonable classification under Article 14 for granting citizenship, and
• Whether the state is discriminating against Muslims by excluding them.
• The Supreme Court has earlier held that the law has to clear two legal hoops to pass the equality test when it is challenged on the grounds of Article 14.
• First, any differentiation between groups of persons must be founded on an “intelligible differentia”, and
• Second, “that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Act”.
• The SC can strike down a classification if it is found to be arbitrary. The court recently struck down the electoral bonds scheme on the ground that it was “manifestly arbitrary” — that is, “irrational, capricious or without an adequate determining principle”.