Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019: Protecting Persecuted Minorities

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 was passed by the Parliament of India on 11

December 2019. It amended the Citizenship Act of 1955 by providing a path to Indian
citizenship for Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian religious minorities fleeing
persecution from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. Under the 2019 amendment,
migrants who had entered India by 31 December 2014, and had suffered "religious
persecution or fear of religious persecution" in their country of origin were made eligible for
citizenship. The amendment also relaxed the residence requirement for naturalization of these
migrants from eleven years to five. The legislation applies to those who were “forced or
compelled to seek shelter in India due to persecution on the ground of religion”. It aims to
protect such people from proceedings of illegal migration. The cut-off date for citizenship is
December 31, 2014 which means the applicant should have entered India on or before that
date. Indian citizenship, under present law, is given either to those born in India or if they
have resided in the country for a minimum of 11 years. Now why are protests breaking out
across India, a few of them violent, against this Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 if this act
is about protecting minorities? Is it just a political agenda by the opposition, a result of
blatant misinformation spread among the masses or is there genuinely something wrong with
the act?

Through this article I will prove the constitutional validity and moral legality of this act.
Firstly, The Citizenship Amendment Act (2019) is an “Enabling Act” and not a Disabling
Act. An Enabling Act is an act which gives certain rights to certain people and does not
interfere with the status quo. Thus, this removes the possibility of anything happening to
“The Indian Muslim” as claimed by some protestors. Indian Muslims would not be affected
by this act as this act is not a Disabling Act and thus does not take away any rights. The
CAB 2019 now gives the right to Hindus, Parsis, Christians, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs from
three countries only -namely, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh who are already staying
in India for the last many years, to apply for the category of a ‘naturalized’ citizen. Now all
these suddenly “woke” citizens of this country have come forward to argue that why is this
bill denying citizenship to Muslims of these three countries? Actually, and hypothetically
speaking this act also denies citizenship to atheists, agnostics, Jews and scientologists. The
problem with these “woke” citizens is that they are focusing only on one such community
which would then help them in creating a hostile climate in this country which would then
favour their political agendas. Now as far as the issue with Muslims is considered, CAA
accepts people persecuted on the basis of their religion, now just by the definition of religious
persecution someone belonging to the religion of the state CANNOT be religiously
persecuted, they can be politically or economically persecuted so then they should follow the
usual process of naturalisation and seek political asylum in India. So, it’s not like these
people will never be granted citizenship or are being denied citizenship based on their
religion, these are just some mis informants who in the process of acting educated are
destroying the political permanence of the nation. Now some people also came ahead as the
saviours of those people who even though belonged to the religion of the state were
considered minorities and thus were subject to persecution (e.g.: The Sunnis). Now this
discrimination is just because of the lack of governance of those very states and India should
not encourage their lack of governance by considering them minorities.
Some legal scholars also argue that CAA is unconstitutional and violates Articles 14,15 and
21. One by one I will prove that how this Act has not violated any aspect of those articles and
is totally constitutional. Article 14 contains two concepts - equality before law and equal
protection of laws. The first, is a negative concept, which means that no one can have any
special privilege in the country, with respect to treatment by law. The second, is a positive
concept, where in scores of cases, the Supreme Court has held that the provision provides for
equal treatment only under equal circumstances. This means that the state can legitimately
discriminate among people under different circumstances, and it is prohibited to discriminate

only among people in a particular circumstance. CAA is one of those laws which facially
equal, Equal is treating those standing on a “similar” platform “similarly”. There has to be
different laws for the “Davids” and the “Goliaths”. Thus, the classification is entirely based
on this object. The discrimination argument overlooks that minorities in our neighbouring
countries do not stand on the same platform as the people belonging to the religion of the
state. CAA is a narrow-tailored-pro-minority law for those persecuted by our three Islamic
neighbours, the constitution of those three countries defines a religion of state (Islam) and
this law is for those people who are subject to possible religious persecution in those very
countries. This does not mean that they would not be given citizenship but that would depend
on the general asylum rules of India, thus there is no violation of article 14. As far as Article
15 is concerned it is only valid for citizens of India so there is no doubt there, as these people
are seeking citizenship and are not citizens per se. Similarly, Article 21- the right to life is for
those who reside in India, live in India and not those who want to enter India.

Therefore, let us stress again- this Bill is an ‘Enabling’ Act. Not a ‘Disabling’ Act. So, for
example, there are 100 hungry persons. An Enabling Act is the act of feeding 50 of them. Let
us not forget that we have not 'enabled' anybody for the last 30 years. For now, just focus on
addressing the need to grant citizenship to those waiting for the same for many years. In our
debate to feed 50 or 100, we should never forget that our first duty is to remove the
hunger. Not to debate the definition of hunger, not to analyse the kind of hunger or not to
hypothesise on fears and prophesies. Right now, just address the hunger. Just address the
desperation of these non-citizens. These “suddenly woke” citizens and mis informants should
not act without having proper knowledge about the Act itself and indulge themselves in un-
constitutional activities resulting in public and private loss. These mis informants are not only
influencing other people to join them in their path of “political freedom” but in the process
also fulfilling the political agendas of the “smart” who are driving these protests for their own
personal benefits. I would just like to conclude by saying that Citizenship Amendment Act is
a constitutionally valid act for the benefit of those who were unjustly treated in their
respective countries and provides them with new lives.

Written By,

Shobhit Shukla.

(Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai.)