Legal Challenge to CAA Rules Notified by Centre in 2024: Constitutionality of Citizenship Law Faces Supreme Test
- ByAdmin --
- 21 Apr 2025 --
- 0 Comments
After years of delay, the Central Government in March 2024 officially notified the rules under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA), operationalizing a controversial law that seeks to fast-track Indian citizenship for non-Muslim immigrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan.
Within days of the rules being notified, a flurry of legal petitions were filed in the Supreme Court, challenging both the Act and its rules as violative of the Constitution’s secular fabric, equal protection clause, and international refugee obligations.
This long-anticipated judicial battle now promises to determine whether religion can be a valid criterion in granting citizenship, and how far Parliament’s power extends when it intersects with fundamental rights.
What the CAA Does — and Why It’s Controversial
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019:
- Fast-tracks citizenship for undocumented migrants belonging to six minority religions—Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians—who entered India on or before December 31, 2014, from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan.
- Excludes Muslims from its scope, even if they are persecuted religious minorities (e.g., Ahmadiyyas, Hazaras, Shias).
- Reduces the naturalization period from 11 years to 5 years for these groups.
While the government has justified the Act as a humanitarian measure for persecuted minorities in neighboring Islamic nations, critics argue that:
- It violates Article 14 (Right to Equality) by discriminating on religious lines.
- It contradicts India’s secular constitutional identity.
- It fails to include persecuted Muslim groups, such as Rohingya or Ahmadiyyas.
- It may be used in tandem with NRC (National Register of Citizens) to render Indian Muslims stateless.
The Legal Challenge: Key Arguments in the Petitions
Over 200 petitions have now been tagged together for hearing by the Supreme Court. The main legal grounds raised include:
1. Violation of Article 14 – Right to Equality
- Religion is not a valid classification under Article 14 unless it has a reasonable nexus with the objective of the law.
- Petitioners argue that the exclusion of Muslims is arbitrary, especially since Muslim minorities are also persecuted.
2. Article 21 – Right to Life and Dignity
- Denial of citizenship or the fear of statelessness affects an individual's right to live with dignity, especially for those born and raised in India.
3. Secularism as a Basic Structure
- The Constitution’s preamble declares India a secular nation. Laws that prefer one religion over another are argued to violate the “basic structure doctrine” laid down in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).
4. Violation of India’s International Obligations
- Though India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, it is bound by customary international law against refoulement (return of refugees to a place of danger).
- The selective nature of CAA allegedly undermines India’s moral and legal standing as a refuge.
Centre’s Defence: Humanitarian and Limited in Scope
The government has defended the Act and its rules, stating:
- CAA does not take away rights or citizenship from any Indian citizen, regardless of religion.
- It merely provides a faster route to citizenship for those who were already in India under distress.
- Parliament has full power under Article 11 of the Constitution to regulate matters of citizenship.
- The law applies to only three neighboring countries with an Islamic majority, where non-Muslim minorities face systematic persecution.
What the Supreme Court Has Said So Far
The Court has:
- Refused to stay the Act since its passage, but agreed to hear the challenge on merit.
- Formed a Constitution Bench (5 judges) to address the matter.
- Directed the Centre to respond to all petitions, explaining the rationale for exclusion and steps for implementation.
Hearings are expected to commence in full during the next constitutional session, making this one of the most closely watched cases since Ayodhya and demonetization.
Voices from the Ground: Fear and Uncertainty
The implementation of the rules has led to:
- Fresh anxieties among Indian Muslims, especially in states where NRC is likely to follow.
- Uncertainty among migrants and stateless persons who don’t fall into the six religious categories.
- Legal and civic advocacy groups urging the Court to halt the process until constitutional validity is determined.
Citizenship, Rights, and the Soul of the Constitution
At its heart, the legal challenge to the CAA is not just about paperwork—it is about who belongs, and who decides. Can a modern democracy classify citizens-in-waiting by faith? Or must it look only to humanity, history, and constitutional morality?
The Supreme Court’s eventual verdict will not just shape immigration law—it will define the contours of equality, secularism, and belonging in 21st-century India.
RELATED Blog
0 comments