'CAA Will Ensure Only Muslims Excluded From NRC Will Face Action' : Assam Congress Leaders Approach Supreme Court

The Leader of Opposition in the Assam Assembly, Mr. Debabrata Saika, and Congress MP from Assam, Mr. Abdul Khaleque, have filed an interim application in the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Rules 2024 notified on March 11. The application contends that these rules are unconstitutional and violate the Assam Accord.  

The application is filed in their writ petition filed in 2019 challenging the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019, emphasizing issues specific to the State of Assam and raising concerns about the violation of constitutional principles like equality, secularism, and non-discrimination. The earlier petition is currently pending adjudication.  

CAA Rules 2024 Lack Determining Principle - Why Sri Lankan Eelam Tamils Excluded? 

The application argues that the impugned Act and Rules lack a determining principle, rendering them manifestly arbitrary. The applicants contend that the law is ultra vires for the selective classification based on religion, asserting that Sri Lankan Eelam Tamils should also be included, considering their persecution based on both religion (Hinduism) and ethnicity. 

Violation of Assam Accord

The application highlights Clause 5.8 of the Assam Accord, which mandates the detection, deletion, and expulsion of foreigners who entered Assam after March 25, 1971. Granting citizenship to non-Muslim illegal migrants contradicts this accord and threatens the cultural and socio-economic fabric of Assam. 

 Discriminatory Impact - Foreign Tribunals May Persecute Muslims 

The application points out that the Act and Rules create a discriminatory impact by providing protection to certain religious groups while subjecting Muslims to Foreigner Tribunal proceedings. This, it argues, makes the Foreigners Tribunal arbitrary and raises concerns about the targeting of Muslims.

"The impugned Act and the Rules by design and default ensure that the people excluded from the NRC list, who are belonging to the religion of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians would be able to seek protection under the impugned Act. However, the people excluded from the NRC list belonging to Muslim religion would face proceeding of Foreigner Tribunal." 

"Therefore, the impugned Act and the Rules ensure that the proceeding before the Foreigner Tribunal and detention would be directly targeted against the Muslims alone. This will only make the Foreigners Tribunal arbitrary."

Apprehending Suppression of Dissent - DCP's Notice To Opposition To Withdraw Strike 

The application expresses apprehension about the implementation of the Act and Rules leading to a curtailment of the fundamental right to freedom of speech. It highlights a notice served on the morning of March 12 to 16 opposition leaders, including Mr. Saika and Mr. Khaleque, warning them to withdraw their call for a strike against the Rules or face legal action. The leaders view this notice as a direct attack on democratic rights. 

"It is pertinent to mention that the DCP (Crime), Guwahati has served notice upon 16 opposition leaders, belonging to various political parties which form the United Opposition Forum, Assam in the morning of 12.03.2024, directing them to withdraw their call of “sabartmak hartal” (strike) against the Rules or face legal action. It is most respectfully submitted that this notice is a blatant attack on the democratic rights of persons belonging to the United Opposition Forum, Assam, including the Petitioners herein."  

The application was filed through Advocate-on-Record Pyoli.

Yesterday, the All Assam Students Union (AASU) filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court seeking the annulment of the Citizenship Amendment Rules 2024. ASSU asserts that the notification of the Rules on 11.3.2024 stands in stark contradiction to the Assam Accord and S. 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955. AASU argues that these rules legitimize illegal migrants, adversely impacting indigenous culture and violating constitutional provisions.

Background

The Union Government notified the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules 2024 yesterday (March 11), thus paving the way for enforcement of the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 (CAA).

In the said backdrop, several applications / petitions have been filed by various stakeholders to the Supreme Court. 

The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) on March 12 filed an application seeking stay of the Citizenship Amendment Rules 2024. Political party IUML is the lead petitioner in the batch of writ petitions pending in the Supreme Court challenging the CAA. 

IUML filed an interlocutory application in the pending writ petition seeking an immediate stay of the implementation of the CAA. It argued that the normal rule of presumption of constitutionality of a statute will not operate when the legislation is "manifestly arbitrary". The petitioner argued that since the Act has linked citizenship to religion and has introduced a classification solely on the basis of religion, it is "prima facie unconstitutional" and ought to be stayed by the Supreme Court. 

This was followed by another stay application filed by the Democratic Youth Front of India (DYFI). In the application, the DYFI contended that granting citizenship based on the religion of immigrants offends the fundamental principle of secularism. The Citizenship Amendment Act 2019, for the first time ever in the history of India, introduced religion as a condition to grant citizenship to immigrants.  

What is CAA?

The CAA, which seeks to fast-track the process for getting Indian citizenship for non-Muslim migrants who fled from persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan and entered India before December 31, 2014, was passed by the Parliament in 2019. 

As per the proviso introduced in Section 2(1)(b), migrants belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Parsi, Jain, and Christian religions from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan are eligible for citizenship by naturalization if they can establish their residency in India for five years instead of existing eleven years. 

However, the implementation of the law was put on hold in view of the massive country-wide protests which took place against it. The protests were compounded by the Government's proposal to introduce a National Register of Citizens (NRC) along with the implementation of the CAA. 

Critics of the law object to the religion-based exclusion of refugees from the benefit of CAA, arguing that linking Indian citizenship with religion undermines the country's secular character. Over a hundred writ petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the law's constitutionality. The Supreme Court, while agreeing to hear the matter, declined to stay the operation of the Act. 

Yesterday, the Union Government notified the rules to implement the CAA and notified the formation of committees at the State/UT level to process the applications under the Citizenship Amendment Act.