Today (March 19th), the Supreme Court directed the Centre to provide a response within three weeks to applications requesting a suspension of the implementation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024. CJI Chandrachud led bench scheduled the case for further hearing on April 9.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court took action Today by requesting the Central government‘s response to a plea for a suspension of the recently enacted Citizenship (Amendment) Rules of 2024, effectively implementing the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 (CAA).
Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, formed the bench and issued notice to the Centre regarding the plea for a stay, setting a deadline for the response by April 2.
“Let submissions be made on the stay application limited to five pages till April 2. Let respondents file a 5-page reply to the application by April 8,”
-the Court instructed.
The Court then scheduled the next hearing for April 9, stating,
“We direct that the proceedings be listed after three weeks. File the reply only in one case. Response not needed in all the petitions. Reply can oppose the interim prayer. We will keep this on April 9.”
Initially, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government, requested a four-week extension to file the government’s response to the plea for a stay. However, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, objected to this timeframe.
“Four weeks for (reply to) an application of stay is far too much…These rules have been notified after four years. Since 2020 they have been going to parliament after every three months and now notified. If citizenship is granted now then there are chances that it cannot be reversed. Under international law once citizenship is granted you cannot take it back,”
-Sibal argued.
The discussion unfolded in the courtroom as Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, questioned the sudden urgency behind notifying the rules almost four years after the passage of the CAA.
“What’s the urgency after four years? They said (earlier) that we are not notifying, therefore, there was no need for stay,”
-Sibal argued.
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta responded by highlighting the nature of the petition, stating,
“They are seeking a stay on statutory rules.”
In response to the SG’s argument, the Court granted the government two weeks to file its response to the plea.
“The Court said that it will grant two weeks to the government to file its response,”
-noted the proceedings.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, also representing the petitioners, emphasized that the government should assure that no citizenship would be granted under the rules while the matter is under consideration by the Court.
“Whether citizenship is granted or not petitioners will not be impacted,”
-the SG replied.
However, Jaising reiterated the constitutional concerns, stating,
“That’s not the issue. The issue is the constitutionality of this.”
Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar intervened, raising a specific case and questioned the potential impact of granting citizenship under the rules.
“There is a case of a Hindu from Balochistan. If citizenship is granted then how are they affected?”
-he demanded.
In response, Jaising pointed out the implications, stating,
“They will get the right to vote! We can argue on merits right now.”
She further pressed for an interim stay, asserting,
“This court must say that citizenship granted during this period will be subject to orders of this court. We cannot go on with hope and trust jurisprudence anymore.”
However, Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud highlighted logistical concerns, noting,
“But the infrastructure of State level committee etc., is not in place.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal concluded the session by indicating their readiness to approach the Court if necessary.
“No, no nothing is going to happen till then. If something happens we will file an application in this court. If something happens we will move the court,”
-Sibal stated as the hearing concluded.
The bench presided over a cluster of approximately 236 petitions pertaining to the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA), and the recently promulgated Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024.
The CAA, passed by the parliament on December 11, 2019, and ratified the following day by the President, prompted immediate legal challenges. On the same day, the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court to contest the legislation, triggering a surge of petitions.
Envisaged to extend citizenship to Hindus, Jains, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Parsis who arrived in India on or before December 31, 2014, from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, the CAA and Rules carry significant implications.
The CAA introduces amendments to Section 2 of the Citizenship Act of 1955, delineating the category of “illegal migrants.” By appending a new proviso to Section 2(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, the legislation exempts individuals belonging to certain communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, or Pakistan, who have received exemptions from the Central government under the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, or the Foreigners Act, 1946, from being classified as “illegal migrants.” Consequently, such individuals become eligible to pursue citizenship under the 1955 Act.
However, the CAA’s exclusion of the Muslim community from this proviso prompted widespread protests and a plethora of legal challenges, with petitioners asserting that the legislation discriminates against Muslims based on religion, contravening the right to equality under Article 14.
While the apex court had issued a notice to the Union of India on December 18, 2019, regarding these challenges, it refrained from imposing a stay on the law, given that the Rules had not been notified, leaving the Act in abeyance.
Nevertheless, in an abrupt development, the Central government formally notified the rules last week, on March 11, effectively operationalizing the CAA.
This sequence of events spurred a barrage of applications before the Court, seeking a suspension of the Act and Rules, including pleas lodged by the IUML, Assam Congress leader Debabrata Saikia, Asom Jatiyatabadi Yuba Chatra Parishad (a regional student outfit), Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI), and the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI).
CASE TITLE:
Indian Union of Muslim League and ors vs Union of India and ors
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CAA
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
