Navigating the Legal Maze: Constitutional Challenges and Implications of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)

“The law is reason, free from passion.”

                                                          – Aristotle

Abstract:

This paper focuses on the intricate legal debates and constitutional controversies that have arisen following the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in India. The primary objective of this research is to analyze the various legal aspects and constitutional dilemmas associated with the CAA. By conducting a thorough examination, this paper investigates how the fundamental principles of Indian constitutional law intersect with the provisions of the CAA. It assesses the impact of the CAA on citizenship rights, equality, and secularism, highlighting the conflicts between legislative intentions and constitutional safeguards. Additionally, this study evaluates the constitutional issues raised by the CAA, such as concerns related to discrimination, arbitrary categorization, and the infringement of basic rights. By drawing on legal precedents, academic viewpoints, and judicial interpretations, this research aims to offer a nuanced comprehension of the legal framework surrounding the CAA and its constitutional implications. Ultimately, this paper contributes to the ongoing dialogue on citizenship, constitutionalism, and the rule of law in contemporary India.

Keywords: Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), legal implications, constitutional challenges, citizenship rights, Secularism, Discrimination.

I. Introduction

The Partition of India in 1947 was a significant event that was influenced by intricate political dynamics and various factors. Despite the desire for a united India, leaders ultimately agreed to Partition due to concerns over religious tensions. India distinguished itself from Pakistan by asserting its secular identity, although apprehensions remained regarding the safety of minorities in Pakistan. Following the Partition, minorities in Pakistan faced persecution, resulting in a substantial migration to India. Initiatives such as the Nehru-Liaquat Pact aimed to address these concerns but fell short, leading to continued migration. The Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 sought to provide relief to persecuted non-Muslim minorities from neighbouring countries, but its exclusion of Muslims generated controversy.

The constitutionality of the Act has been called into question, citing concerns regarding discrimination and adherence to constitutional principles. To evaluate its legitimacy, it is crucial to delve into the historical background and address the obstacles encountered by marginalized communities. Decisions made by the Supreme Court on matters of citizenship and equality will play a crucial role in determining the Act’s legality.  This study aims to provide a thorough analysis of the Citizenship Amendment Act, exploring its historical context, legal implications, and broader societal consequences. Through an in-depth examination of the Act and the surrounding discussions, this paper aims to contribute to a nuanced understanding of one of India’s most controversial legislative measures.

II. CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act)

The Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAA Bill) was initially presented in 2016 in Lok Sabha by making amendments to the Citizenship Act of 1955. Subsequently, this bill underwent scrutiny by a Joint Parliamentary Committee, and their report was subsequently submitted on January 7, 2019. On January 8, 2019, the Lok Sabha passed the Citizenship Amendment Bill, but it became invalid with the dissolution of the 16th Lok Sabha. However, on December 9, 2019, the Minister of Home Affairs, Amit Shah, reintroduced the bill in the 17th Lok Sabha, and it was later passed on December 10, 2019. The Rajya Sabha also approved the bill on 11 December.

The purpose of the CAA was to grant Indian citizenship to undocumented immigrants who entered India on or before December 31, 2014. This act specifically targeted migrants belonging to six different religions, namely Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians, from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. To be eligible under this act, an individual must have resided in India for the past 12 months and for 11 of the previous 14 years. However, for the specified category of undocumented immigrants, the residency requirement has been reduced from 11 years to five years.

Salient features of this Act are as follows:

  • A proviso has been inserted in clause (b) sub-section (1) of section 2 of the principal act. It provides that a person from Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community who has come from neighbouring countries of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, or Pakistan into India on or before 31st December 2014 shall not be treated as illegal migrants. (Section 2 of CAA)
  • A new section has been inserted – Section 6(b), according to which the central government or any other authorized authority may grant a ‘certificate of registration’ or ‘certificate of naturalization’ to a person mention in above stated provision. [Section 3 (1)]
  • Such a person who is granted the certificate of naturalization or registration under section 6 (b) shall be deemed to be a citizen of India from the date of his entry into Indian subcontinent. [Section3 (2)]
  • From the date on which this act shall come into effect, persons against whom proceedings are pending under this section regarding the matter of illegal migration or citizenship shall stand abated. [Section 3 (3)]
  • Section 6(b) shall not extend to the tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, or Tripura as specified in the 6th Schedule to the Constitution and the area covered under “The Inner Line” notified under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873. [Section 3 (4)]
  • A proviso shall be added to clause (d) of 3rd schedule, which provides for qualifications for naturalisation. As per this proviso, for the 6 communities (Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, Christian) from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the aggregate period of residence or service of Government in India as required under this clause shall be read as “not less than five years” in place of “not less than eleven years”. (Section 6)
  • Apart from this, the bill added one more ground to the existing provisions for cancellation of registration of Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) in the principal Act. Those migrants who are of Indian origin or who have Indian spouse can register as OCI under the principal Act. OCI gets a lot of benefit with respect to education, travel, and work. Under this provision, the registration will be cancelled if an OCI violated any law of India.

Objectives of the Act:

  • Evaluating the legality of the legislation.
  • Scrutinizing the factors influencing the selection of specific communities from specified nations.
  • Delving into the financial, societal, and governmental implications.
  • Uncovering the reasons behind demonstrations and identifying common trends.
  • Investigating possible connections among CAA, NRC, and NPR.
  • Reviewing the Supreme Court’s position on the issue.
  • Analysing the reactions of various states towards the implementation of NRC.

III. Evolution of CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act)

The historical evolution of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in India throughout history showcases a transformative process characterized by modifications and disputes, which have significantly influenced the country’s citizenship structure. Starting with the original Citizenship Act of 1955 and progressing through subsequent alterations, notably the controversial amendment in 2019, the evolution of the CAA has remained a central topic of discussion and examination.

  • The Initial Act of 1955:

The Citizenship Act of India, which was passed in 1955, established the basic principles that govern Indian citizenship after the country gained independence. Based on the provisions of the constitution, this act outlined the various criteria for acquiring citizenship, such as birth, descent, registration, and naturalization. One of the key principles embraced by this act was jus soli, or the right of the soil, which granted citizenship to individuals born within the geographical boundaries of India. This significant legislation exemplified the early nation’s dedication to inclusivity and democratic ideals, aiming to guarantee equal rights and opportunities for every citizen.

  • Amendments Over Time:

Throughout the years, the Citizenship Act has been subject to various amendments in response to the evolving socio-political dynamics and emerging challenges. Significant revisions took place in 1986, 1992, 2003, 2005, 2016, and 2019, each bringing about notable changes to the citizenship framework. These modifications broadened the scope of citizenship criteria, introduced the concept of jus sanguinis for citizenship by descent, and established provisions for the Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) status. Furthermore, steps were taken to tackle issues concerning illegal migration and citizenship documentation, showcasing the government’s commitment to adapting to changing circumstances and upholding the integrity of the citizenship regime.

  • The Controversial Amendment of 2019:

The Citizen Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA) was approved by the Indian parliament on December 11th 2019. This amendment has sparked controversy as it appears to selectively target certain religious groups while excluding others by categorizing them as ‘illegal migrants’ under Section 2(1)(b) of the act. However, individuals can establish their citizenship by providing evidence through the National Registrar for Citizenship (NRC) process. This amendment was designed to hasten the process of granting Indian citizenship to persecuted religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. However, the decision to exclude Muslims from the amendment’s provisions led to widespread debate and criticism. Critics argued that the amendment was discriminatory and contradicted the secular principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The subsequent protests and legal battles highlighted the deep-seated divisions within Indian society on issues related to citizenship, identity, and communal harmony.

  • Citizenship Amendment Rules, 2024:

Despite a delay of over four years, the Ministry of Home Affairs has officially issued the Citizenship Amendment Rules, 2024, facilitating the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019.

The key provisions include:

  • Application Process: Eligible refugees are required to submit applications accompanied by affidavits verifying statements, character references from Indian citizens, and a declaration of proficiency in a designated Indian language for citizenship.
  • E-Application to District-Level Committee: The rules stipulate that applications must be submitted electronically to a district-level committee for verification of documents and administration of the oath of allegiance. Failure to appear in person may result in rejection of the application by the empowered committee following review by the district committee.
  • Supporting Documentation: Applicants are mandated to provide supporting documents such as passports, birth certificates, identity papers, land records, or evidence of ancestry from Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Bangladesh to substantiate their citizenship claims.
  • Verification of Entry Date: Applicants must furnish evidence of entry before December 31, 2014, through one of the 20 specified documents, including FRRO registration, Census slips, government-issued IDs (such as Aadhaar, ration card, driver’s license), or marriage certificates issued in India.
  • Current Status:

While the government has justified the Citizenship Amendment Act as a humanitarian act, the law continues to be embroiled in controversy and legal examination. The Supreme Court of India has been inundated with various petitions questioning the constitutionality of the Act, indicating a continuous discourse and ambiguity regarding its enforcement. The future of the CAA and its effects on India’s democratic principles and diverse society are still under intense discussion and worry, underscoring the intricate and diverse aspects of citizenship within the Indian framework.

IV. Constitutional Validity of CAA

Ever since the Citizenship Amendment Bill was introduced, the opposition has consistently asserted its unconstitutionality. Their main argument revolves around the belief that the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), in conjunction with the National Register of Citizens (NRC), will exclusively favours non-Muslims. Additionally, a significant wave of protests has erupted in Assam, with demonstrators contending that this legislation directly contradicts the Assam Accord of 1985. The Assam Accord stipulates that any individuals who entered the state illegally after the 25th of March, 1971, from Bangladesh should be repatriated, according to estimates Assam currently harbours over 2 crore illegal Bangladeshi migrants, who are believed to be responsible for the depletion of natural resources and the inflationary pressures experienced within the state.

Various stakeholders, such as political figures, legal scholars, non-governmental organizations, and student associations, have contested the constitutionality of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) through the submission of petitions to the Supreme Court. Despite the rejection of a request for an immediate halt to the implementation of the act, the court agreed to review its compliance with the constitution on December 18, 2019. A panel of three judges, led by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde and including Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Sanjeev Khanna, was established to address the 144 petitions challenging the CAA on January 22, 2020. Senior counsel K.V. Vishwanathan, representing the petitioners, raised concerns about the extensive authority granted to officials to classify individuals as ‘doubtful citizens’ without sufficient safeguards. The Chief Justice reassured that legislation like the CAA is not set in stone, acknowledging some of the worries expressed. The Court served a notice to the Union Government, requesting a response within four weeks, and announced that interim prayers for a suspension of the CAA would be deliberated by a five-judge panel during the next hearing scheduled for February. Moreover, on March 3, 2020, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) lodged an intervention application in the Supreme Court, seeking to participate as a party in a writ petition contesting the CAA, underlining the international human rights aspect of the matter.

Certainly, to be precise CAA is not unconstitutional and rather it will and rather it has met the requirements of judicial scrutiny. As instituted in the case of Budhan Choudhry and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that Article 14 of the Constitution permits reasonable classification for legislation, although it prohibits class legislation. The Court established two conditions for permissible classification: first, the classification must be based on an intelligible differentia distinguishing the grouped subjects from those excluded, and second, this differentia must have a rational relation to the objective of the statute in question. Also, in the landmark judgement of Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court upheld the principle that Article 14 of the Constitution permits reasonable classification for legislation. The Court outlined two conditions for permissible classification: first, the classification must be based on an intelligible differentia distinguishing the grouped subjects from those excluded, and second, this differentia must have a rational relation to the objective of the statute in question. The Court also recognised that an enactment has a presumption of validity, and the burden is on the challenger to demonstrate a clear breach of constitutional norms. Furthermore, the legislature is believed to understand the people’s demands, and laws are designed to address problems identified through experience. Finally, the Court emphasised that the legislature’s good faith and awareness of actual facts are inferred, but if the categorization lacks a reasonable foundation, the presumption of legality cannot be sustained. In these three nations, Muslims and non-Muslims are not classified simply according to religion.

The exclusion of Muslims from these countries from the benefits of the CAA, 2019 is not only due to their religion, but also because they live in a country where their own religion dominates and there is a minimal chance of them facing religious persecution, unlike non-Muslims. In this context, the qualification for religion is determined by the probability of facing religious persecution. The restriction lies in classifying solely based on religion, but if there is an additional factor related to religion, then such classification would be considered valid. This principle was upheld by a 2-judge bench of the Hon’ble Court in the case of Ewanlangki-E-Rymbai v. Jaintia Hills District Council:

In Paragraph 20, the examination of Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution was conducted by Mr. R.F. Nariman, who represented Respondents 5 and 6. Nariman contended that Article 14 permits reasonable classification, while Article 15 prohibits discrimination solely on religious grounds. He stressed that discrimination solely based on religion could potentially violate the constitution. Nevertheless, Nariman justified the exclusion of Christians from participating in the Dolloi position, citing their inability to fulfill the religious responsibilities associated with the role. He argued that this exclusion aimed to safeguard cultural practices rather than being solely motivated by religion.

Furthermore, he made mention of the Clarence Pais v. Union of India case as a point of reference to substantiate the rationale behind implementing disparate treatment grounded in historical factors. In the case of Clarence Pais v. Union of India, the Court provided significant insights in paragraph 7, as follows:

The Court highlighted that the provisions of the law applied not only to Christians but also to Parsis after an amendment in 1962 and to Hindus residing within specific territories. These territories were those under the Lt. Governor of Bengal on September 1, 1870, or under the original jurisdiction of the High Courts of Bombay and Madras. Additionally, the law applied to all wills made outside these territories concerning immovable property situated within them. The Court emphasized that this wide application demonstrated that the section in question was not exclusively applicable to Christians, thus refuting claims of discrimination. The Court reasoned those historical reasons, rather than religious discrimination, were the basis for such differential treatment. It noted that in the British Empire in India, probate was required to establish the rights of legatees or executors, except in Part ‘B’ or ‘C’ States. This historical practice continued even after the enactment of the Constitution. The Court concluded that historical reasons could justify varying treatment in different geographical regions, provided it was reasonable and justifiable in relation to the subject matter of the treatment.

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019 has faced scrutiny for its alleged violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. However, proponents argue that the Act’s classification of countries is justified and serves the objective it seeks to achieve. The selection of Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan, as predominantly Islamic states, is rooted in historical context, particularly the partition era, which witnessed significant population movements between these nations and India. Afghanistan’s adjacency to Pakistan and India (POK) further supports this classification, given the substantial immigration that occurred post-partition. Additionally, these countries share a commonality in terms of persecution faced by religious minorities, particularly in Pakistan. Overall, it states that CAA is a lawful and justifiable measure aimed at addressing the specific needs of persecuted religious minorities, without infringing upon the constitutional rights of any individual or group.

V. Constitutional Challenges of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) has faced legal challenges before the Supreme Court, primarily on grounds of violating constitutional rights, including the right to equality under Article 14, the right to life under Article 21, and constitutional morality inherent in the basic structure.

A. Article 14: Right to Equality

Critics claim that the CAA breaches Article 14, which protects the right to equality. While Article 14 allows for fair categorization, it must be based on intelligible differentia and have a rational relationship to the purpose sought to be attained. The CAA’s use of religion as a criterion for granting citizenship creates illegal classifications between citizens based on their faith, excluding Muslims and certain persecuted sectors like Ahmadiyyas and Shias, rendering the classification unreasonable and discriminatory. In the case of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar, Justice SR Das emphasized that Article 14 does not mandate universal application of all legislation, but rather requires that any classification made in legislation must be based on intelligible differentia that are rationally related to the objective of the Act. Therefore, the objective of the legislation must have a reasonable rationale behind it; otherwise, if the objective is arbitrary, it indicates that the Act does not meet the standards set by Article 14.

B. Religion-Based Classifications

The Supreme Court has held that Article 14 forbids class legislation but allows for reasonable classification. However, the exclusion of Muslims and certain other groups from the scope of the CAA renders the classification arbitrary and discriminatory, violating the principle of equality before the law.

C. Under-Inclusive Nature of Classification

Critics further argue that the CAA is under-inclusive as it excludes religious minorities from other neighbouring countries such as Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Nepal, and Bhutan. This arbitrary classification, limited to only three countries, lacks a rational basis regarding the persecution of minorities and undermines the principle of equality under the law.

In the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court examined the concept of arbitrariness through the lens of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within India, while Article 15 prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, sex, place of birth, or any of them. It is important to note that Article 15 is applicable solely to Indian citizens and does not extend to foreigners or illegal migrants in India. Moreover, in the case of E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court articulated that an action is considered arbitrary if it is unequal in terms of both political rationale and constitutional principles, thereby infringing upon Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) has been criticized for treating individuals disparately based on religion, thereby contravening the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14. This perspective was also shared by former Supreme Court Justice Madan Lokur, who censured the CAA for disregarding the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.

D. Undermining of Secularism

Moreover, opponents contend that the CAA undermines India’s secular character, which is enshrined in the Constitution’s Preamble. The use of religion as a criterion for determining citizenship contradicts the secular principles upheld in landmark cases such as S.R. Bommai v. Union of India. Additionally, the adoption of a secular approach in the Nehru-Liaquat Pact, which protected the rights of minorities irrespective of religion, highlights the contradiction posed by the CAA’s religious-based criteria.

E. Section 6A of The Citizenship Act, 1955 (CAA&ASSAM)

Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, pertaining to citizenship in Assam, presents obstacles to the effective implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). This particular provision, originating from the Assam Accord, establishes a deadline for determining citizenship status based on residency in Assam prior to March 25, 1971. The presence of this stipulation complicates the CAA’s aim of granting citizenship to specific religious minorities who migrated to India from designated countries on or before December 31, 2014, due to its intersection with the distinctive citizenship framework in Assam. Legal disputes have emerged concerning the coherence and potential clashes between Section 6A and the CAA, underscoring the necessity for clarity and resolution in addressing citizenship matters in Assam.

VI. Implications of CAA

  1. Potential Ramifications for Muslims: The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), together with the projected National Register of Indian Citizens (NRIC), has the potential to disproportionately affect Muslims in India. While non-Muslims may be able to get citizenship through the CAA, Muslims may encounter barriers to doing so.
  2. Exclusion from NRIC: In cases when persons are excluded from the NRIC, non-Muslims may be able to get entry through the CAA, although Muslims may face barriers. The Supreme Court-monitored NRC procedure in Assam in 2021 resulted in over 19 lakh persons being omitted from the citizenship record, raising concerns about discrimination and exclusion.
  3. Executive Decree and Enforcement: The Union government issued an order authorising District Collectors in five states with substantial migrant populations to give citizenship to those mentioned in the CAA amendment. However, there were suspicions that this instruction sought to apply the CAA, which the administration rejected.
  4. Relaxation of Citizenship Requirements: The recently established CAA guidelines have eased the process of obtaining Indian citizenship for members of select tribes by removing the requirement for a valid passport or visa. Instead, proof demonstrating descent from specific nations is considered enough.
  5. Constitutional Litigation: The CAA’s constitutionality has been challenged in court, with petitioners claiming that the law violates Article 14 of the Constitution by incorporating religion as a factor for citizenship.
  6. Impact on the Assam Accord: Criticism has been directed at the CAA for undermining the Assam Accord of 1985, which does not differentiate based on religion and regards individuals unable to prove ancestry beyond March 24, 1971, as aliens. Petitions suggest that the law may result in an increase in illegal migration from Bangladesh to Assam.

VII. Nexus between NRC & CAA

The National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) are two key components of India’s citizenship system, each serving distinct purposes and carrying different consequences. The NRC, first implemented in Assam, is designed to establish a complete list of Indian citizens while excluding illegal immigrants, particularly those from Bangladesh who arrived in the state after March 24, 1971. Its main objective is to identify legitimate Indian citizens and remove undocumented migrants living in Assam. To accomplish this, individuals must provide documentary evidence demonstrating their lineage and residency in Assam or another state prior to the specified deadline. Those unable to provide adequate documentation face the risk of being left out of the citizenship list.

Conversely, the CAA provides a route to Indian citizenship for specific groups of immigrants from neighbouring nations. It pertains to individuals belonging to six religious communities – Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian – who migrated to India from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh before December 31, 2014. Unlike the NRC, the CAA does not concentrate on identifying or excluding individuals but rather grants citizenship to eligible immigrants based on their religion and country of origin. The documentation requirements for acquiring citizenship under the CAA are less strict, primarily necessitating proof of entry before the specified date.

The NRC and CAA have distinct target populations and operate under different legal frameworks. The NRC includes all residents of Assam and potentially other states in the future, while the CAA specifically focuses on illegal immigrants from certain countries and religious communities who entered India before a specified cut-off date. The NRC has been implemented in Assam and may expand to other states, whereas the CAA applies nationwide. Legally, the NRC operates under the authority of the Citizenship Act of 1955 and its associated rules, while the CAA represents an amendment to the same act, providing provisions for granting citizenship based on religious and geographical criteria. Although both the NRC and CAA have significant implications for citizenship in India, they serve different purposes, target different populations, and operate under distinct legal frameworks.

VIII. Conclusion

To conclude, it is of utmost importance to address the misconceptions and intentional dissemination of false information surrounding the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in India. By thoroughly examining the constitutional provisions, particularly Articles 14 and 15, it becomes clear that the CAA does not violate fundamental rights and does not discriminate against any specific community. Article 14 of the Constitution ensures that all individuals are entitled to equality before the law. It allows for legitimate differentiation if it is based on reasonable classification and serves a lawful objective. The Citizenship Amendment Act employs such classification by granting special provisions to religious minorities hailing from neighbouring theocratic nations. This measure is aimed at safeguarding them from persecution, a fact supported by census data. It is also important to note that Article 15 solely applies to citizens, thereby preventing non-citizens from challenging the utilization of religion in this classification. The exclusion of Muslims from the Act cannot be deemed as overtly discriminatory, as they do not fall under the category of persecuted religious minorities in the specified countries. This exclusion is primarily based on religious persecution rather than solely on religion, aligning with the overall purpose of the Act.

CAA’s categorization of persecuted religious minorities from neighbouring theocratic states is a justifiable measure aimed at protecting the rights of those who face religious persecution. The exclusion of Muslims from these countries is not an act of discrimination, but rather a recognition of the unique circumstances faced by religious minorities in these regions. Additionally, the decision to exclude Ahmadiyas, despite being a sect within Islam, is not a rejection of humanitarian principles, but rather an acknowledgment of their status as practitioners of Islam who experience persecution in their home countries. It is crucial to emphasize that the CAA does not undermine the rights of Indian Muslims. Any claims suggesting otherwise are unfounded and driven by hidden motives aimed at creating discord and division.

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) serves as a symbol of India’s dedication to safeguarding the rights of persecuted minorities while upholding its democratic values. It is an essential and lawful initiative that should be analyzed with a clear and unbiased perspective, devoid of political biases and misinformation. Through thorough examination, it is evident that the CAA marks a crucial advancement in promoting fairness and parity for individuals who have encountered persecution due to their religious convictions. This legislation mirrors India’s diverse culture and its steadfast resolve to defend the liberties and entitlements of every citizen, irrespective of their religious background.

References:

  1. The Citizenship (amendment) Bill, 2019 (2024) PRS Legislative Research. Available at: https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-citizenship-amendment-bill-2019 (last visited April 07, 2024).
  2. The Citizenship (amendment) Bill, 2019 (2024) PRS Legislative Research. Available at: https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-citizenship-amendment-bill-2019 (last visited April 07, 2024).
  3. Indian Legal Solution (2020) Critical analysis of citizen amendment act, 2019, Indian Legal Solution. Available at: https://indianlegalsolution.com/critical-analysis-of-citizen-amendment-act-2019/ (last visited April 09, 2024).
  4. Citizenship (Amendment) Act,2019, Act No. 47, 2019 (India)
  5. Editor, I. (2021) Citizenship (amendment) act, 2019 (CAA), INSIGHTSIAS – Simplifying UPSC IAS Exam Preparation. Available at: https://www.insightsonindia.com/2021/03/24/citizenship-amendment-act-2019-caa/ (last visited April 09, 2024).
  6. Jus Corpus, Jus Corpus / AuthorMore posts by Jus Corpus and Corpus, M. posts by J. (2022) Evolution of citizenship laws in India, Jus Corpus. Available at: https://www.juscorpus.com/evolution-of-citizenship-laws-in-india/ (last visited 08 April, 2024).
  7. AIR 1955 SC 191
  8. AIR 1958 SC 538
  9. AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 1589, 2006 (4) SCC 748
  10. AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 1151, 2001 (4) SCC 325
  11. 1952 AIR 75, 1952 SCR 284
  12. Prabhash K. Dutta New DelhiDecember 9, 2019 UPDATED: December 9 & 2019 15:55 Ist, Why Citizenship Amendment Bill needs to pass Article 14 test, India Today, https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/does-citizenship-amendment-bill-violate-fundamental-right-to-equality-1626641-2019-12-09 (last visited April 10, 2024).
  13. Poddar, M. (2018) ‘The citizenship (amendment) Bill, 2016: International law on religion-based discrimination and Naturalisation Law’, Indian Law Review, 2(1), pp. 108–118. doi:10.1080/24730580.2018.1512290.
  14. AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 4321
  15. 1974 AIR 555
  16. Citizenship amendment rules a ‘deceptive instrument’: Citizens’ group (no date) The Wire. Available at: https://thewire.in/rights/citizenship-amendment-rules-a-deceptive-instrument-citizens-group (last visited April 09, 2024).
  17. 1994 AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3) 1
  18. Sucheta, Ridhi and Debnath, A.K. (2016) Passport (entry into India) amendment rules, 2016, SCC Times. Available at: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2016/07/20/passport-entry-into-india-amendment-rules-2016/ (last visited April 08, 2024).
  19. Anushka (2023) Section 6A of citizenship act, 1955 and assam accord, GKToday. Available at: https://www.gktoday.in/section-6a-of-citizenship-act-1955-and-assam-accord/ (last visited April 09, 2024).
  20. Deepala, S. et al. (2020) Explainer: How does One become an Indian citizen? what changed with the CAA? FACTLY. Available at: https://factly.in/explainer-how-does-one-become-an-indian-citizen-what-changed-with-the-caa/ (last visited April 09, 2024).
  21. CAA protests in assam: Why it is different from the rest of the country (The Economic Times). https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/caa-protests-in-assam-why-it-is-different-from-the-rest-of-the-country/articleshow/72844673.cms?from=mdr (last visited on April 10, 2024).
  22. Dangerous doublespeak: The Hindu editorial on Government’s NPR-NRC Talk (2019) The Hindu. Available at: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/dangerous-doublespeak-on-governments-npr-nrc-talk/article30397520.ece (last visited April 10, 2024).
  23. Everything you wanted to know about the CAA and NRC – India Today Insight News, https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-the-caa-and-nrc-1630771-2019-12-23 (last visited April 08, 2024).

Author Details:

Author: Debopriyo Shome

Designation: Student

University: Sister Nivedita University

Co-Author: Madhushree Jana

Designation: Student

University: Sister Nivedita University