Vidhan Bharat

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019 aims to amend India’s Citizenship Act of 1955 to grant Indian citizenship to religious minorities – Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians – who faced persecution in neighboring Muslim-majority countries – Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. These migrants must have arrived in India on or before December 31, 2014. However, the exclusion of Muslims from this provision has been the primary source of controversy and criticism.

The CAA has been a subject of intense debate due to its exclusion of Muslims from the list of eligible communities. Many critics argue that this exclusion contradicts India’s secular principles enshrined in the Constitution. They view it as a violation of the right to equality before the law, regardless of religion.

Criticism –

The main objection to the Act is that it only helps certain religious groups, leaving out Muslims. This goes against the idea of fairness and equality. Also, it doesn’t include other persecuted Muslim groups like Shia, Balochi, and Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan and Hazaras in Afghanistan. Critics also say it ignores people from Myanmar and Sri Lanka, like Rohingya and Tamil Hindus, who are also facing persecution.

No,

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2019 does not specifically target or discriminate against Muslims. The law aims to provide citizenship to migrants from certain non-Muslim backgrounds who arrived in India before December 31, 2014. Islamic faith is not a criterion for citizenship under the act. The misconception may stem from various factors, including confusion or misinformation about the law’s specific objectives and scope.

According to section 6(1) of the Citizenship Act 1955, Foreigners (Muslims from anywhere in the world) may become Indian citizens by naturalization after residing in the country for at least 12 years and renouncing any previous nationalities. Anyone of at least 18 years old who has lived in India for 12 of the past 14 years and has demonstrated good character and intent to reside in the country can apply for Indian citizenship through naturalization. The CAA has cut the period of citizenship by naturalization from 11 years to five.

It is well known that the Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan are one the most persecuted minorities. Hence, Ahmediyas and Rohingyas can apply for Indian citizenship through naturalization if they have valid travel documents.¹ If a Shia Muslim is facing persecution and seeks refuge in India, their case to stay in India as a refugee will be looked at based on their situation and reasons for seeking shelter.

Criticism –

Critics argue that it is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality. It provided ‘equality of status’ for all people either citizens or non-citizens. The exclusion of Muslims and certain other groups from the scope of CAA makes the classification arbitrary and discriminatory.

No,

The CAA does not violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court has held that Article 14 forbids class legislation but does not forbid reasonable classification. A reasonable classification includes all persons who are similarly situated for the law.²

In David John Hopkins v. Union of India (1997), the Madras High Court ruled the government has the absolute right to refuse citizenship, not bound by equal protection under Article 14.³

In Louis De Raedt v. Union of India (1991), the Supreme Court stated that foreigners’ rights in India were limited to Article 21; citizenship was not guaranteed by equal protection under Article 14.⁴

Criticism –

The Citizenship Amendment Act raises concerns in Northeastern states due to fears of demographic change, economic pressure, and political implications, violating the Assam Accord.

No,

The Citizenship Amendment Act doesn’t change the importance of the Assam Accord’s rule about identifying and removing illegal immigrants who came before March 24, 1971. The CAA is not just for Assam; it’s applicable across India and aligns with the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Additionally, benefits under the Act exclude those arriving after December 31, 2014, aiming to address concerns about recent migration.⁵

The CAA is not just for Assam; it applies to the entire country. It doesn’t go against the National Register of Citizens (NRC), which is being updated to safeguard native communities from illegal immigrants. Additionally, people who belong to religious minorities in their homeland and come to India after December 31, 2014, won’t get benefits under the Citizenship Amendment Act.

Criticism –

Critics argue that this combination could be used to target and marginalize Muslims, as the CAA favors non-Muslim immigrants, while the NRC could render many Muslims stateless if they fail to prove their citizenship.

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) aims to grant citizenship to certain undocumented immigrants, excluding Muslims, while the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam excluded many individuals, including Hindus and other non-Muslims, who couldn’t prove their citizenship. This created a paradox where those excluded from the NRC could potentially benefit from the CAA.

The CAA grants citizenship to those who came to India after 1971 but before December 2014 will be granted citizenship. In 2018, before the CAA was passed, the government allowed certain communities to apply for Indian citizenship, granting them benefits like employment, education for their children, freedom of movement, banking services, property ownership, and legal documents like driving licenses and Aadhaar cards. Non-Muslim migrants from these three countries who came to India after December 31, 2014, have similar legal rights as other non-citizens. Yet, they might struggle with paperwork, healthcare, and jobs due to language and cultural differences. While generally accepted, they might face discrimination, so the Indian government has implemented schemes and programs to support their integration.

Widespread protests and debates have erupted in India due to the clash between the NRC and CAA, sparking concerns about the treatment of religious minorities, secular principles, and the rights of marginalized communities. Various petitioners have challenged the CAA rules in the supreme country, and the matter is sub-judice.

---

Reference – 

1. T. (2023, August 30). Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 (CAA) – Detailed Explanation for UPSC – Testbook. Testbook. https://testbook.com/ias-preparation/citizenship-amendment-bill-2019
2. Vishwanath, A. (2024, March 13). CAA: Issues in the legal challenge to the law. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/caa-issues-in-the-legal-challenge-to-the-law-9208839/
3. Daivid John Hopkins vs The Union Of India And Others on 28 July, 1997. (n.d.). https://indiankanoon.org/doc/659300/
4. Mr. Louis De Raedt & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 24 July, 1991. (n.d.). https://indiankanoon.org/doc/488726/
5. Citizenship and Assam: An Explainer on the Legal Questions That Still Loom Large. (n.d.). The Wire. https://thewire.in/rights/citizenship-and-assam-the-legal-questions-that-still-loom-large

---