Supreme Court seeks Centre’s response on plea to stay CAA Rules; no interim stay
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the response of the Central government to a plea for a stay on the recently notified Citizenship (Amendment) Rules of 2024 which effectively brought into force the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 (CAA) [Indian Union of Muslim League and ors vs Union of India and ors].
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra today issued notice to the Centre on the plea for a stay and asked it to file its reply 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 said.
It then directed that the matter will be heard next on April 9.
“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,” the Court ordered.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Central government initially sought four weeks to file the Central government’s response to the plea for a stay.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, opposed the same.
“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 said.
He also asked what was the sudden urgency to notify the rules nearly four years after the CAA was passed.
“They are seeking a stay on statutory rules,” the SG said.
“What’s the urgency after four years? They said (earlier) that we are not notifying, therefore, there was no need for stay,” Sibal argued.
The Court said that it will grant two weeks to the government to file its response.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, also appearing for the petitioners, contended that the government should undertake that it will not grant any citizenship under the rules while the matter is pending before the Court.
“Whether citizenship is granted or not petitioners will not be impacted,” SG replied.
“That’s not the issue. Issue is the constitutionality of this,” Jaising replied.
“There is case of a Hindu from Balochistan. If citizenship is granted then how are they affected,” demanded Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar
“They will get the right to vote! We can argue on merits right now,” Jaising responded.
She, therefore, pressed for an interim stay.
“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,” Jaising submitted.
“But the infrastructure of State level committee etc., is not in place,” the CJI pointed out.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal then said that if something happens, they will approach the Court.
“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,” he said as the hearing drew to a close.
CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra
CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra
The bench was hearing a batch of around 236 petitions concerning the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA) and the recently notified Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024.
The CAA was passed by the parliament on December 11, 2019 and got the President’s assent the following day. On the same day, the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) moved the Supreme Court to challenge the same. Subsequently, a large number of petitions came to be filed.
The CAA and Rules aim to grant 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 amends Section 2 of the Citizenship Act of 1955 which defines “illegal migrants.”
It added a new proviso to Section 2(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act. As per the same, persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, and who have been exempted by the Central government under the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, or the Foreigners Act, 1946, shall not be treated as “illegal migrant”. Consequently, such persons shall be eligible to apply for citizenship under the 1955 Act.
However, the law excluded the Muslim community from the proviso, triggering protests across the country and a slew of petitions before the Supreme Court.
The petitioners challenging the law submitted that the CAA discriminates against Muslims on the basis of religion. Such religious segregation is without any reasonable differentiation and violates right to quality under Article 14, it was contended.
On December 18, 2019, the apex court had issued notice to the Union of India on that challenge.
But the Court had not stayed the law since the Rules were not notified which meant that the Act remained in limbo.
However, in a sudden move, the Central government notified the rules last week, on March 11, which effectively brought into force the CAA.
This led to a slew of applications before the Court seeking a stay on the Act and Rules, including those 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). (Via Bar and Bench)
