The Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2019 seeks to provide citizenship to the religious minorities of countries, namely Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. It passed in the Rajya Sabha with as many as 125 MPs voting in favour and 99 against of the same. The bill tabled and passed in the winter session of Lok Sabha on the 9th December, 2020. While, the same was assented by the President on 12th December, 2020. It then became the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘act’). Several protests and various PILs got filed against the act. Though, it received implementation on 10th January, 2020 across the nation.
Constitutional Amendments brought over by the Act
Through this act, the Indian Parliament has amended the Section 2 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Principal Act). Thus, providing a path for the citizenship to the Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Christians, Sikhs and Zoroastrians of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh who arrived India before the thirty first day of December in 2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘cut off date’). The provision to the same is under clause (b), sub-section (1) of section 2 of the principal act. Also, people belonging to the said groups and countries who entered India on or before the cut-off date without any valid travel or passport became exempted to illegal- migrant status by sub-section (2), clause (c) of Section 3 of the passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920.
After the enactment of the said act, the people belonging to the said faiths may qualify for citizenship through naturalization. Only if their aggregate period of residence or service in government in India is not less than 5 years, it becomes possible. The same came in force by inserting a new provision under clause (d) of the Third Schedule which reads, ‘Provided that for the person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community in Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, the aggregate period of residence or service of Government in India as required under this clause shall be read as “not less than five years” in place of “not less than eleven years”.
The Passport (Entry to India) Amendment Act, 1950 includes new provisional clause inserted under the Rule 4, Sub-Rule (1). Named as Clause (ha) which states that the people belonging to the aforementioned faith who have entered India before December 31, 2014 procure citizenship because of persecution of the same on religious lines. They took refuge in India as a compulsion due to their persecution on religious lines in the previously mentioned countries. After the commencement of this act, the referenced minorities procured exemption from any proceedings pending against them in respect of illegal-migration.
However, nothing in the given section shall apply to the tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram or Tripura as included in the 6th schedule to the constitution. Also including, area covered under, “The Inner Line” notified under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873.
Protests and Support rallies with respect to the Act
Controversy all over the country sparked at the very introduction of the bill in Lok Sabha. Two groups emerged, one which endorsed the act, welcoming it as a humanitarian move. While, the other group labelled it as discriminatory and against the principle of secularism. People belonging to the latter group organized protests demanding the roll back of the act. It all started in the state of Assam. Later on it spread to the different states, namely West Bengal, Delhi NCR, Uttar Pradesh and Kerala.
Protestors in Assam contended that new provisions of this act are against the agreements like the Assam Accord. Also, that this new act would cause a “loss of political rights and culture”. According to these protestors Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 in combination with the National Registers of Citizens is dangerous for the poor citizens. As a direct consequence, they will be rendered stateless. Protestors in the North Eastern states demand immediate roll back of CAA because the same is promising citizenship to some poor refugees. They do not want any refugee irrespective of their faith to be given citizenship. The demography of their regions becomes directly affected due to this.
The other people belonging to the same group protested that the law excluded Muslims. Thus, the provisions of this act were against the secular fabric of India. Violence prevailed all over the country as trains burned and roads blocked. While, on the other hand people belonging to the former group rallied in support of the act. Organizations like Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the BJP organised various rallies all across India.
Delhi’s Central Park and Connaught place witnessed scores of people demonstrating in support of the act. However, a group of leaders rallying in support of the act in Bengaluru came under attacked by members of Social Democratic Party of India. According to the Bengaluru Police, the members of the Islamist Militant Organization, Popular Front of India to carry out this activity paid Rs.10000 .
Background of the Act & A brief discussion upon the condition of minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh
The first amendment of the Citizenship Act,1950 happened in 1985. It came as a consequence of the Assam Accord. According to this, then Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi promised to identify, remove from electoral roles and expel from the country, each and every illegal immigrant. Such a promise came about to be after the Anti-foreigner movement. This movement saw huge amount of violence and confrontations in the North-Eastern state of Assam. Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi promised to provide the people of Assam preferential treatment and constitutional safeguards.
Since 1996, ‘Detention, Deletion and Deportation’ of the illegal immigrants is on the agenda of the Bharatiya Janta Party. And thus, in December 2003, the NDA-led BJP government passed the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2003. It had a vision to revise the principal act. The amendment inserted a new provision to the principal act. It declared Illegal immigrants in-eligible to apply for citizenship either by registration or naturalization.
During a Parliamentary debate in Rajya Sabha, Doctor Manmohan Singh demanded a more liberal procedure of citizenship for the minority communities in Bangladesh. Therefore, it was on his request that the religious minority of Bangladesh have been promised citizenship through the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019.
The establishment of Pakistan (West Pakistan and East Pakistan) was purely based upon religion. Founding father of Pakistan never wanted a theocratic state. However the majority Muslim population, Cleric- culture, Barbaric dictatorial regimes made Pakistan a full-fledged theocratic state. A theocratic state, wherein minorities kill, convert, loot and even rape for their religious belief. A member of Pakistan Muslim League- Nawaz, Dr. Ramesh Kumar Vankwani revealed in the National Assembly, that every year more than 5000 Hindus migrate to India from Pakistan.
Barbaric Blasphemy laws of Pakistan has resulted in huge number of false accusations. The false accusations result in many innocents presuming to be guilty without any substantive evidence. Asia Bibi, Christian lady is one of the notable victims of innocents falsely accused under Blasphemy law. Coming to a semi-Islamic state like Bangladesh, where predominantly the Hindus have constantly been targeted by the Muslim Fundamentalist. This violence includes attacking and killing Hindus, looting Hindu owned properties, rape of Hindu woman, desecration and demolishment of Hindu temples. The act is therefore a humanitarian move by the Government of India for the said refugees residing in India.
Does the Act violate the Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
Opposition raise occurred against the act contending the violation to the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the instant paragraph we shall examine whether or not, the act is in violation to the said article. Firstly, according to the Article 14, any person residing in India or a foreigner cannot be discriminated on the ground of sex, religion, caste, or place of birth. However, Article 14 does not mean that all laws must be general in character or that the same laws should apply to all persons or that every law must have universal application. This is because ever person is not, by nature, attainment or circumstances in the same positions.
Thus, the state holds the power to treat different people differently in a given situation. But treating equals unequally amounts to violation of the article 14. Hence, for the progress and over-all development of the society, a ‘reasonable classification’ is needed. The article allows reasonable classification and demands that the classification should not be, “Artificial, Arbitrary and Evasive”. The Indian Supreme Court has laid down two conditions in the case of Saurabh Chaudhari v. Union of India for determining Reasonable Classification:-
(i) The classification must be founded on intelligible differentia. It should distinguish the people grouped together from the ones who have left out from the group.
(ii) The differentia must be in rational relation with the object sought to be achieved by the act. The object of the act and differential on the basis of classification are two separate things. It is essential that there must be the presence of nexus between the object of the act and the basis of classification. When classification by the legislature lacks reasonable basis, then such classification refers to discriminatory.
As discussed in the earlier paragraphs, the three countries, namely Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan have a state religion. There the religious minorities do not possess similar position and privileges alike the people belonging to the majority faith in these countries. Thus, classifying these minorities can be termed as the ones belonging to the left-out group. Before the coming of the instant act, anyone who needed Indian citizenship had to apply it after staying in India for not less than 11 years. However, for these religious minorities who are ‘different’ from the others are eligible to apply for Indian Citizenship after staying in India for not less than five years. Therefore, this classification is reasonable in nature and is not in contravention to the Article 14.
Conclusion
India holds a history of welcoming every group which has knocked her door following persecution in their native lands. Centuries ago, Zororastrians or Parsis were given refuge in India after they escaped religious persecution in their homeland, Persia following Islamic Invasion. Likewise, the Bahai community was also accepted in India after being persecuted in the Middle East. In order to maintain this helping nature, the Government of India brought in the Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2019. This later became Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 after being assented by the President. However, the way this act was implemented led to several disastrous events all across the nation.
This could have been avoided if the Government had taken some basic measures. These measures include, educating the mass about the provisions of the act and how the same had humanitarian grounds. Also, by deploying central police force and other paramilitary forces across different communally sensitive hotspots. The Government of India should have understood that there are people and organizations who will obstruct the implementation of the act by giving it a communal colour. Protests like those at Shaheen Bagh in Delhi orchestrated against CAA remained for more than 2 months. These interrupted the daily lives of the citizens in the area. This even led to a communal riot in Delhi which caused great loss to the humanity and also public properties. Although, the act was implemented long back but the consequences which followed its implementation could have been avoided by taking some basic measures.
0 Comments