Impacts and Reactions: Centre’s Notification on CAA Rules

The Indian Parliament in 2019 decisively ratified the Citizen Amendment Act (CAA), 2019, thereby amending the parent legislation The Citizenship Act of 1955. This amendment introduced a provision facilitating citizenship to migrants from Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Bangladesh. Eligible migrants are those who sought refuge before December 31, 2014, within India as a result of religious persecution. Notably, the amendment relaxed the eligibility criteria, emphasizing religion, particularly for migrants from neighboring Muslim-majority countries. Nearly five years later, the central government has officially issued the CAA rules, 2024, to implement the 2019 Amendment Act, occurring just prior to the declaration of the Lok Sabha elections schedule marking a significant shift in India’s citizenship policies.

Before the introduction of the CAA, the Citizenship Act of 1955 strictly barred the infiltration of unauthorized migrants into India, categorizing them as foreigners subject to deportation and rendering them ineligible for Indian citizenship. The CAA, for the first time in Indian law, altered this paradigm and explicitly granted eligibility for citizenship based on religion. Specifically, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jains, or Parsis from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, or Pakistan, qualify for eligibility, while Muslims from the same regions are excluded from this eligibility criterion. The amendment additionally lowers the twelve-year residency requirement to six years for naturalization.

Since 2022, nine states—Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Delhi, Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, Punjab, Chhattisgarh, and Uttar Pradesh—have already enacted the CAA. However, certain tribal-dominated areas, such as Assam, Tripura, Meghalaya, and Mizoram, are exempt from implementing the CAA. These regions, governed by the Constitution’s sixth schedule, uphold autonomy and cultural distinctiveness, thereby precluding the introduction of the CAA based on religious criteria¹.

Legal Challenge:

Since December 2019, the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) has been under scrutiny, with more than 230 petition challenges awaiting resolution in the Supreme Court. Various parties, including the Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, Assam Advocates’ Association, Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), NGOs Rihai Manch, AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, and Citizens Against Hate, along with several law students, have filed petitions². Additionally, the Kerala Government filed a suit against the CAA in 2020.

At the heart of the challenge is the contention that the CAA contravenes Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which mandates that all individuals are to be treated equally under the law and are entitled to equal protection of laws within India’s borders. The contention revolves around the qualifier or filter of “religious-based citizenship criteria”, with petitioners asserting that this discriminates based on religion, contravening constitutional principles³.

Chief Justice U.U. Lalit, alongside Justices Hima Kohli and Ravindra Bhat, had initially the conclusive hearings on the disputes regarding the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, which are slated for December 6th, 2022.⁴ However, as of now, the case has not been heard, and the matter is presently before a Bench led by Justice Pankaj Mithal.

In response to the petitions, the Central Government, through an affidavit, maintained that the CAA does not infringe upon the existing rights of citizens. Their argument posited that it has no bearing on the legal, secular, or democratic, rights of Indian citizens. Home Minister Amit Shah stated, “The Citizenship Amendment Bill does not discriminate. It gives and does not snatch rights… Citizenship will be granted to refugees from these three countries… even without documents, including ration cards.” Furthermore, the assertion regarding CAA by the Home Minister in 2019 suggested that the rationale behind the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) asserted that Muslims would be “unlikely” to experience “religious persecution” in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, given that these countries have Islam as their state religion.

International Reactions:

Although the Indian government’s reputation suffered internationally, reactions mostly stayed within the realms of diplomatic rhetoric or discussions on human rights. Some notable dissent came from Islamic nations such as Indonesia and Iran. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) labeled the CAA as “fundamentally discriminatory.” While recognizing India’s intent to safeguard persecuted groups, the OHCHR stressed the necessity for a non-discriminatory “robust national asylum system” instead. The OHCHR declared its intention to petition the Indian Supreme Court regarding the CAA⁵.

Despite the controversy, there have been no significant economic deals canceled by any nation, bank, or company due to the CAA. Additionally, there have been no sanctions imposed on India in response to the law. Nonetheless, it continues to be a subject of discussion and scrutiny on the global stage.