Scribd
Upload
10 views1 page

CAA's Constitutional Validity Explored

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) has sparked debate regarding its constitutionality, particularly concerning equality and secularism, as it grants fast-tracked citizenship to specific religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan while excluding Muslims. Critics argue this violates Article 14's principle of non-discrimination, while supporters claim it is a reasonable classification aimed at protecting persecuted minorities. The Supreme Court is expected to provide a definitive ruling on the matter, but there are arguments suggesting the Act may be constitutional based on Articles 14 and 11.

Uploaded by

subhashree
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
10 views1 page

CAA's Constitutional Validity Explored

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) has sparked debate regarding its constitutionality, particularly concerning equality and secularism, as it grants fast-tracked citizenship to specific religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan while excluding Muslims. Critics argue this violates Article 14's principle of non-discrimination, while supporters claim it is a reasonable classification aimed at protecting persecuted minorities. The Supreme Court is expected to provide a definitive ruling on the matter, but there are arguments suggesting the Act may be constitutional based on Articles 14 and 11.

Uploaded by

subhashree
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

By-Subhashree Parhi

BA LLB(hons)

Is the CAA constitutionally valid?

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) has led to widespread discussion because many
people question whether it fits within India's constitutional principles especially equality, non-
arbitrariness, and secularism. The question is whether choosing to protect only particular religions
is a violation of Article 14 or it is still possible to accept the categorization as a valid use of
Parliament in Article 11.
The CAA provides Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Christians and Parsis in Afghanistan,
Bangladesh and Pakistan to be given fast-tracked citizenship in case they have encountered
religious persecution. People opposing it says that it is discriminatory to exclude the Muslims. As
Article 14 safeguards all individuals, they note that any differentiation based on religion must pass
the test of intelligible differentia and rational nexus. They further claim that the Act can be
inconsistent with the secular nature of India which the Supreme Court has declared to be a part of
the basic structure doctrine.
In the parliament debate, one of the leaders of the opposition stated the reason why the government
restricted the scope of the Act to Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan migrants. He noted that
all the three nations are constitutionally Islamic republics, which automatically disadvantage non-
Muslim groups, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Christians and Parsis, as religious minorities.
While he acknowledged this context, he said that even if people are being persecuted, support
should not be limited to only some groups because that seems unfair.
The government on its part defends the Act arguing on two major grounds. First, it declares that
Article 14 does not prohibit classification per se, but only unreasonable [Link]
government says the beneficiaries are chosen not just because of their religion, but because they
are minority groups who face persecution in theocratic countries. This, according to the
government directly linked to the purpose of the Act. Second, with Article 11, Parliament is given
extensive discretion in making laws on citizenship and can consider regional, historical, and
humanitarian realities.
Another fact that should also be considered is that the CAA does not deprive anyone residing in
India of their citizenship. Neither does it prevent the citizens of any religion, even Muslims, to
apply to citizenship in the normal channels. It merely provides another alternative to a certain
group that is struggling with certain hardships.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court will give the ultimate ruling. However, according to the principles
of reasonable classification as in Article 14, and with the powers granted to Parliament in Article
11, one can have some solid grounds to believe that the Act is constitutional.

You might also like