CAA Challenge: Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union On Pleas To Stay Citizenship Amendment Act & Rules, Posts On April 9

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (March 19) issued notice to the union government on a batch of applications seeking to stay the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the Citizenship Amendment Rules 2024. Seeking the Union's response, the court posted the matter on April 9.A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra adjourned today's hearing on Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's request. The law officer sought time to respond to the petitions and the applications. He argued, “There are 237 petitions. 20 applications have been filed for stay. I need to file a reply. I was seeking time. I need time to collate etc. The Act does not take away anyone's citizenship. There is no prejudice caused to the petitioners.”SG Mehta also told the court that the Centre would require four weeks' time to file a response. This was met with objection from Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who alleged that it was an inordinate amount of time to seek for filing a reply to stay applications. Representing the Indian Union Muslim League, the senior counsel argued further, “If the process of citizenship starts, it cannot be reversed. If they have waited till now, they can wait till July or whenever this court decides the matter. There is no great urgency.” Advocate Nizam Pasha, appearing for AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, also pointed out that the Centre's counter affidavit states that it is a preliminary affidavit to oppose a stay on the Act. “What they are asking for time for is already filed.”“My learned friend is right,” SG Mehta admitted, but explained that the Union of India would like to file a detailed affidavit now in response to the batch of applications.Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, in turn, urged Solicitor General Mehta to make an assurance at the Bar that pending the hearing, no one would be granted citizenship. Appearing on behalf of a Hindu immigrant from Balochistan, Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar countered, "This individual was persecuted in Balochistan. If they are given citizenship, how will it affect you?"Jaising replied, "They will get the right to vote!"Other counsel representing the petitioners also responded by saying that 'prejudice' would be caused. Pasha argued that individuals from the Muslim community left out of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) will be prejudiced. He explained -"In 2019, 19 lakh people found themselves outside the pale of citizenship. No executive decision has been taken on what is to be done with them. Now, the law is allowed to come into operation where it's like lining up people in front of a firing squad where it is said all persons not belonging to X religion, can step out of line. That's the prejudice caused. Now, for the non-Muslim persons outside of the NRC, their applications can start getting processed under the CAA while only the Muslim members are left out of this exercise. And any executive action will be directed towards one particular community, one particular religion.""Mr Pasha, please. An effort was made earlier outside this court to mislead people that they will be ousted. This is the same thing that Mr Pasha did. The NRC is not an issue before this court, only the grant of citizenship on the basis of the Citizenship Amendment Act," SG Mehta protested."Alright. Instead of four weeks, we will grant you three weeks," Chief Justice Chandrachud told the solicitor general. When the law officer pointed to the volume of the litigation, Chief Justice Chandrachud instructed, "At this stage, You can file a response only to the interim application.""Let them have as much time, but don't grant citizenship in meantime," Jaising added."I am not making any such statement," Solicitor General Mehta stated firmly.When Jaising insisted that the court clarify in its order that any citizenship granted in the meantime will be subject to the outcome of the petitions, Chief Justice Chandrachud pointed out that the government did not have neither the infrastructure nor the committees processing citizenship applications in place. To this, Sibal suggested, "The moment something like this happens, give us liberty to move here.""We are here," Chief Justice assured.Assam tribal organisations raise apprehension over inflow of people from other states owing to CAAThe discussion also touched upon the unique situation in Assam and the North East regarding the exclusion of certain areas from the CAA's operation. Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria highlighted that Section 6B(4) of the Act excludes the entire northeast, including Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, and Meghalaya. He emphasised that if their argument succeeds, these areas would be included.“Only tribal areas are excluded, not the whole of the state,” Jaising pointed out.Hansaria, who was appearing for an umbrella organisation comprising several tribal organisations in the State of Assam, responded by saying that there were only three tribal areas in the state spanning seven districts. Arguing against...

CAA Challenge: Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union On Pleas To Stay Citizenship Amendment Act & Rules, Posts On April 9

Awstika Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Awstika Das

CAA Challenge: Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union On Pleas To Stay Citizenship Amendment Act & Rules, Posts On April 9

Awstika Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Awstika Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers