On 12th March: Congress Leader Debabrata Saikia has filed an Interlocutory Application in the Supreme Court, challenging the implementation rules and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Saikia argues that the Act’s religious categorization violates constitutional principles and the Assam Accord, potentially disrupting Assam’s ethnic and socio-economic balance.
NEW DELHI, INDIA: On 12th March: Debabrata Saikia, the Leader of the Opposition in the Assam Legislative Assembly, took legal action by filing an Interlocutory application (IA) before the Supreme Court, challenging both the regulations governing the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the Act itself.
READ ALSO: SCAORA Election|| Condemns Secretary Over Baseless Allegation
In his plea, Saikia highlighted that both the Regulations and the underlying Act introduce a divisive categorization based on religion and country of origin. He argued that such a classification fails to pass the test of ‘manifest arbitrariness’ established in the Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) case.
Saikia contended that this categorization is unjust, discriminatory, lacks transparency, and opens the door to favoritism or nepotism, thus contradicting the principles of fair competition and equitable treatment. Moreover, he asserted that the presumption of constitutionality cannot be applied in this instance.
Furthermore, Saikia emphasized that these regulations violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality to all individuals regardless of their citizenship status. Additionally, he argued that the regulations about the Citizenship Amendment Act violate Clause 6 of the Assam Accord. According to him, by granting citizenship to non-Muslim illegal migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who entered India before December 31, 2014, the Act directly opposes the terms of the Assam Accord of 1985. He expressed concerns about the potential repercussions of such measures on the delicate ethnic and socio-economic balance in the state of Assam.
Saikia’s Interlocutory Application requests to stay the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) rules, citing the Act’s passage in 2019 and its non-implementation for over four and a half years. He argued that delaying implementation until the court reaches a final decision on the current Writ Petition would not cause any harm.
“The normal tule of presumption of constitutionality of a statute does not apply in the present case. The rules violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality to all persons: citizens and foreigners Differentiating between the people along religious lines, especially when it comes to citizenship issues, would violate the Constitution,” the petitioner said.
He also submitted that the impugned Act and Rules are not based on any determining principle and bence are manifestly arbitrary. The object of the Act states that the three selected countries provide for a specific state religion. As a result, many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jam, Parsi, and Christian communities have faced persecution on grounds of religion in those countries. However, Sri Lanka also has a state religion. The classification might be singling out persecuted religious minorities. However, on this logic, Sri Lankan Eelam Tamils must also be included, as the Tamil Eelams are persecuted based (Hinduism) and ethnicity.
READ ALSO: Kerala Declines Union Government’s Rs 5,000 Crore Loan Offer Amid Financial Crisis
“By granting citizenship to non-Muslim illegal migrants who came to India from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan before December 31, 2014, the Act contradicts the Assam Accord of 1985. It is limited to religion on respectfully submitted that this is an attempt to destroy the fragile ethnicity and socio economic fabric of the state of Assam,” Saikia said in the petition.
He argued that this is in contravention of Clause 6 of the Assam Accord, which states that Constitutional, legislative, and administrative safeguards, as may be appropriate, shall be provided to protect, preserve, and promote the culture, social, linguistic identity, and heritage of the Assamese people
“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,” Saikia further said
The Union Home Ministry announced the rules for implementing the CAA shortly before the Lok Sabha elections schedule was released. The Act aims to provide Indian citizenship to non-Muslim migrants facing persecution, including Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, and Christians, who migrated from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan and arrived in India before December 31, 2014.
After the enactment of the CAA, heated protests emerged throughout the country, especially in the states of Assam and Tripura. This was followed by brutal persecution of the protestors, including the foisting of false criminal cases on them. Many of such protestors are still languishing in jail, said Saikia.
“It is respectfully submitted that there is apprehension that the implementation of the impugned Act via notification of the Rules will result in a fresh onslaught on the fundamental right of freedom of speech of citizens of India and the muzzling of dissent,” he said
“It is pertinent to mention that the DCP (Crime), Guwahati has served notice upon 16 opposition leaders, belonging to various political parties which formed the United Opposition Forum, Assam on March 12, directing them to withdraw their call of sabartmak hartal” (strike) against the Rules or face legal action,” he alleged.
Saikia further submitted that this notice is a blatant attack on the democratic rights of persons belonging to the United Opposition Forum, including the petitioners herein. The application further submitted that the notices misinterprets judicial precedents.
The Kerala High Court in Bharat Kumar K Palicha vs. the state of Kerala [AIR 1997 Ker 291], affirmed by this court in Communist Party of India (M) Bharat Kumar [(1988) 1 SCC 20], distinguished between a “bandh’ and a “hartal”. While the said judgments mandate monitoring against illegal blockades, they do not restrict peaceful protests or hartals.
He also submitted that since the impugned Act was enacted in 2019 and no action has been implemented for the past four and a half years, prejudice will be caused if its implementation is deferred until the final decision of this court in the present writ petition.
Saikia maintains that the rules violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality for all individuals, regardless of their citizenship status. He added that differentiating people based on religion, especially concerning citizenship matters, would constitute a violation of the Constitution.
