The Supreme Court on Friday (March 15) agreed to hear a batch of pleas for staying the freshly-notified Citizenship Amendment Rules on Tuesday, March 19.
Several petitioner, including the Indian Union Muslim League, moved the apex court after the union government notified the rules, by filing an interlocutory stay applications in their pending writ petition. The Citizenship Amendment Rules were notified by the Centre to enforce the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, which is the subject matter of numerous ongoing litigations.
Today, IUML's applications was mentioned by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal before a bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, with a request for an urgent hearing. The senior counsel argued, "The Citizenship Amendment Act was passed in 2019. At that time there was no rules, so no stay was granted by this court. Now they have notified the rules ahead of the Lok Sabha elections. If citizenship is granted, it will be impossible to reverse. So the interim application may be heard."
"So far as listing is concerned, I have nothing to say. It may be listed. Apropos what my learned friend has said, none of the petitioners has any locus to question the grant of citizenship," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court.
After this brief exchange, the chief justice agreed to post not only the IUML's application but all other pleas praying for a stay of the Citizenship Amendment Rules 2024 for hearing on Tuesday. Chief Justice Chandrachud also clarified that the whole batch comprising 237 petitions will be listed along with the latest interlocutory applications.
What has IUML argued?
The IUML, through Advocate Pallavi Pratap, has sought an immediate stay on the CAA's implementation, arguing against the act's linkage of citizenship to religion, terming it 'prima facie unconstitutional'.
In its application filed on March 12, the IUML argued that the CAA, which introduces a classification solely based on religion, undermines the concept of secularism enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The party emphasised that while it does not oppose granting citizenship to migrants, it vehemently objects to religion-based exclusion.
It pointed out that since the CAA had not been implemented for four and a half years, deferring its implementation till the court's final decision would not cause prejudice. However, individuals granted citizenship under the act may be stripped of it if the law is later deemed unconstitutional, it cautioned.
Furthermore, the IUML requested the Supreme Court to direct the union government not to take coercive action against individuals excluded from the CAA on religious grounds. It also sought provisional permission for members of the Muslim community to apply for citizenship pending the court's decision.
Background
The backdrop of this legal battle lies in the contentious Citizenship Amendment Act 2019, which aims to expedite Indian citizenship for non-Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan who entered India before December 31, 2014. The act faced massive protests and legal challenges due to its religious-based classification, leading to over 200 writ petitions in the Supreme Court. These writ petitions were last listed before the apex court on October 31, 2022.
The government's defence of the act rests on its assertion that it does not affect the citizenship of any Indian citizen. However, critics argue that the CAA's exclusion of certain religious groups from its benefits runs counter to India's secular ethos.
On March 11, the union government notified the rules to implement the Citizenship Amendment Act as well as the formation of committees at the state or union territory level to process the applications under the act.
This triggered a cascade of legal challenges with the Indian Union Muslim League leading the charge by filing an interlocutory application in their pending writ petition the very next day. The IUML was not the only petitioner to approach the apex court. On the same day, the Democratic Youth Front of India (DYFI) filed an application in their writ petition, contending that the act's religious criteria violate the fundamental principle of secularism which forms a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Soon, the All-Assam Students Union (AASU) and opposition leaders from Assam also joined the legal fray, challenging the rules' compatibility with the Assam Accord and constitutional provisions.