The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) raised concerns over the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), specifically questioning the Centre’s claims about the Act’s intent to help persecuted minorities. The IUML questioned, “What about Ahmadiyyas of Pakistan, Muslims in Myanmar, Tamil Hindus of Sri Lanka, and Buddhists of China?”
NEW DELHI: Today (8th April): The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) raised concerns about the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in its recent written submission to the Supreme Court. The IUML questioned the Government’s claim that the CAA is intended to provide citizenship to minorities who have fled neighboring countries due to persecution.
The Supreme Court is set to hear over 200 petitions related to the CAA, including requests for a stay on its implementation. In this article, we will examine the IUML’s arguments and its criticism of the CAA.
The IUML submitted written arguments to the Supreme Court ahead of the scheduled hearing on April 9. The party raised pertinent questions regarding the exclusion of certain groups from the provisions of the CAA.
The IUML questioned,
“What about Ahmadiyyas of Pakistan, Muslims in Myanmar, Tamil Hindus of Sri Lanka, and Buddhists of China?”
READ ALSO: Supreme Court, Led by CJI, to Hear Challenges Against CAA on March 19
The IUML challenges the Central Government’s assertion that the CAA is aimed at aiding persecuted minorities. According to the party’s submission, the Act fails to fulfill this objective as it selectively chooses between persecuted groups, leaving out others.
The IUML criticized the Central Government’s assertion that the Act is designed to assist persecuted minorities, labeling it as inherently mistaken.
“It is apparent that the basic assertion that the CAA intends to provide citizenship advantages to persecuted minorities is intrinsically incorrect. This is because it discriminates among different types of persecuted groups. The issue here isn’t just about excluding certain groups. The exclusions highlight a clear absence of any logical connection with the purported goal of implementing a refugee policy,” states the written submission.
The IUML emphasizes the importance of a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory refugee policy. It argues that any refugee policy should be universal, considering the needs of all individuals seeking refuge in India, without discrimination based on protected characteristics.
Another issue raised by the IUML is the lack of clarity in the current Citizenship Act regarding dual citizenship. The submission points out that the CAA and its associated rules do not require applicants to renounce their native country’s citizenship. This ambiguity creates the possibility of dual citizenship, which the IUML argues violates the Parent Act. The party contends that this renders the rules both ultra vires and manifestly arbitrary.
The submission argued that
Any refugee policy should be equitable, just, non-prejudicial, and inclusive, addressing the needs of all asylum-seekers in India without discrimination based on inherent traits.
READ ALSO: BREAKING| CAA | Asaduddin Owaisi Moves Supreme Court Seeking Stay
“The CAA and its regulations do not mandate applicants to relinquish their original country’s citizenship. This ambiguity could lead to dual citizenship, contravening the principal Act, rendering the regulations not only beyond their legal scope but also evidently arbitrary,” as presented to the Supreme Court.
The CAA, enacted by Parliament on December 11, 2019, has sparked intense debate and widespread protests across India. Various groups and individuals have expressed concerns about the potential exclusionary nature of the legislation and its impact on the secular fabric of the country.
