ANALYSIS OF CAA AND NRC

ABSTRACT

The introduction of Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 in the Parliament has led to major mass
protests and demonstrations, because most of the people see it as an an act that separates the nation
on the grounds of religion. The speculation in the National Registry of People reform has added
more heat to the ongoing anti-CAA campaign. The research project will deal with the objective of
focussing on critical analysis of the motive of addition of a clause in the constitution during it’s
formation and the change in its meaning after continuous alteration. The general objective for doing
this project was to highlight the importance of understanding the motive and meaning of our
constitution makers and realize the fact that there should be misinterpretation with the basic
structure of the constitution,

The objective behind this paper is also to show the importance of our noble constitution of India.
The aim of this project is not to show any biases towards or allege against the new amendment act.

INTRODUCTION

Who is classified as a citizen of India? According to constitution makers this concept was added in
the constitution with the aim to include each and every individual who was born in this country.
This was having the implied function of eliminating distinctions from the society or we can say to
unite the society. It was added in the constitution of India under article 5 to 11. Not only a person
who was born in the country will be called a citizen but also a person whose parents or grandparents
are born in the country and none of the parents are illegal migrants from the other nations are also
called the citizens. This meant that the person shall be qualified as the citizen of India under the
supreme power of Indian constitution. However the issue for concern is not who the citizen of the
country is or who can be classified as the citizen of the country but the issue here is in the recent
time what is the essence behind calling a person a citizen of the country. Now after many
amendments in the citizenship act the concern is whether a person will be called a citizen based on
his birth, or he will be called a citizen based on his parents birth place or the newest base can be his
or her religion. With the recent citizenship amendment act the purpose of our constitutional makers
has been abolished. Any Hindu or Muslim earlier use to be the Indian now the confusion is “Is the
Indian Hindu or Muslim?” because the new amended act says that any minority Hindu, Sikh, Jain,
Buddhist, and Parsi from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh won’t be considered illegal
migrant. So the issue for concern is raised that why are Muslims not included in this list. This
research project will analyze this issue and it’s critical analysis with the constitutional debates that
took place between our ancestors who included this concept and with what approach. This long
term paper will not tend to classify whether this amendment is correct or not but only focus on the
changing definitions of citizens.

CITIZENSHIP AND CONSTITUTION

Citizenship is included in the constitution under Article 5 to 11. Article 5 of the constitution states
that every person who is staying in India, who is born in India, whose parents are born in India and
are staying in India immediately 5 years before the commencement of constitution are considered as
the citizen of India. Article 6 on the other hand deals with the citizenship of migrants from Pakistan
during division of the country. It says that any person who has migrated from Pakistan or he himself
or his parents or grandparents were born in India as per the definition of Government of India
Act,1935 and he migrated into India before the date of July19,1948 will be ordinarily considered as
the citizen of India and if he has not migrated before the date mentioned above then he is required
to get a sanction from the officer in the central government by showing record that he has been
living in the country for at least 6 months. Article 7 of the constitution is read as any person who
migrated to Pakistan after march1, 1947 shall not be considered as the citizen of the country and
whoever returns back for the purpose of resettlement shall also be considered as the citizen of the
country who migrated after July 19, 1948. Article 8 of the constitution deals with the citizenship of
the people who are residing in some other country, it says that any person who is the resident of any
other country but was born in India or whose parents are born in India can acquire the citizenship by
registering his name under the Indian consulate present in that country1. But this obviously states
that in such a condition he cannot have citizenship of any other country. The Article 9 of the
constitution is also regarding the same concept which says that if any person voluntarily takes the
citizenship of any other country he has to give up his Indian citizenship. Article 10 says that the
right of citizenship shall continue regardless of any law made by the parliament. Article 11 of the
constitution ensures that this subject is added in the union list and thus any laws can be made by the
parliament only. Indian constitution also ensures that no person can have dual citizenship.

1 Karan Thapar, NRC Breaches Citizenship Act and Is Unconstitutional, THE WIRE, ( Sep. 10, 2019),
https://thewire.in/law/nrc-citizenship-act-assam
HISTORY OF ADDING CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE

During the time of partition Pandit Jwaharlal Nehru and Liyaquiat Ali Khan signed an agreement on
April 8,1950. This agreement was signed because of the massive destruction of people and property
such as massacres of people , rape of women and mass level loot in both the countries. This
agreement was signed to bring harmony among the different communities of people irrespective of
their class or their religion. This was also signed to ensure that all those people who are offenders
should be punished and the people and property of the migrating people should be saved. These
people should have the free right to move anywhere in the country, have equality, have free right to
apply for any job occupation irrespective of their religion. It was also signed to make them feel
secure in their own country. Each member of the country irrespective of their majority of minority
shall have full right to participate in political offices and public life of the country. Both the
countries by signing this agreement ensured that citizenship is a right which will be given to each
member of the country and these rights shall be fundamental in their nature. They shall be
effectively brought into force by both the governments and without any distinction. This agreement
was made to ensure free movement to the citizens of both the countries and protection of their
movable and immovable property if they return by December 31,19502.

AMENDED RIGHTS OF CITIZENS

Since the inception of article 11 which gave the right to the parliament to make the amendments in
the citizenship clause it has been amended a lot of times. Uptil year 2020 since the assent from the
president in 1960 this clause has been amended around 10 times and the major ones being in the
year 1955 and the year 2019.

In order to understand the problem in the latest amended version of this clause we need to analyze
by comparing it to the citizenship amendment bill 1955. The citizenship clause is a very small
clause which just has 19 sections and in section 2 clause (b) of this we have the definition of “illegal
migrant”, which is very important in the present controversy. As according to the earlier amended
part only two categories of people were considered as illegal migrants. First ones are those who
were foreigners who entered our country without a valid passport. And the second were those who
entered the country with a valid passport but stayed here longer than the required time. But when

2 Karan Thapar, The NRC is at odds with the citizenship Act, HINDUSTAN TIMES, (Sep. 07, 2019),
https://www.hindustantimes.com/columns/the-nrc-is-at-odds-with-the-citizenship-act/story-
Kvop2i2VGlFTuZvJLQjKbK.html
this clause was amended again in 2019 the meaning was made broader by adding another category
to illegal migrants. They added the category of all the people from Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Parsis,
Jains and Christians from Afghanistan , Bangladesh and Pakistan who entered the country before
December 31,2014 and They will not be considered as illegal migrants Or if these people had got
the assent from the central government by exempting them from section 3 of the Passport Entry
into India Act, 1920. So if the citizens prove both the 3conditions mentioned above they can become
the citizens of the country.

DO WE NEED CAA?

The fear that most of the country in the world has of illegal migrants. There have been illegal
migrants in our country India. In 2003, Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2003 (CAA 2003) had
brought in "illegal migrant" and National Register of Indian Citizens (NRIC) into the Citizenship
Act of 1955; 2003 Rules under this amendment that brought in the National Population Register
(NPR) and "doubtful citizenship" and Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2019 (CAA 2019) which
introduced religion-based citizenship but excluding Muslims.

The main question which arises is that “Do we really need CAA?” This is likely to have adverse
effects on all but most certainly on the landless, illiterate and others who may find it difficult to
produce the necessary documents, not to talk about the high social , human and economic costs
involved in such a work.

India Today's Data Intelligence Unit (DIU) studied state-wise voters' lists, from 1971 to 2019
generation elections, to check if a large number of outsiders had indeed availed the voting rights,
especially in Assam and West Bengal - another claim made to justify the CAA-NPR-NRC combine.
The findings were stunning :(a) The average growth of voters during 1971-2019 in West Bengal
was 10.4% and Assam 10.6% - against the national average of 11.1%. The spike was higher in
Delhi (19.3%), Gujarat (12%) and Maharashtra (11.7%), indicating a high inter-state movement of
people.
(b) Even during the period of 1971-1985, when influx was higher, the spike in Assam (61%),
Tripura (71%) and West Bengal (49%) were higher than the national average (46%) but so was the
case with Nagaland (115%), Delhi (73%), Gujarat (63%) and Haryana (62%).

3 Abhishek Atrey, Framework and Challenges to Citizenship (Amendment) Act and National Register of Citizens,
INDIAN LEGAL LIVE ( Jan. 06, 2020), https://www.Indialegallive.com/did-you-know-facts-about-news/perspective-
news/framework-and-challenges-to-caa-and-nrc-81213
DIU also analysed the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNHCR) data and found that
most of the refugees residing in India on June 30, 2018 - numbering a total of 108,008 - are from
China (Tibetans), followed by Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Afghanistan. More recently, in 2016, 2017
and 2018, most of the refugees are from Myanmar and Afghanistan. Both are captured in the graphs
below4.
The CAA 2019 stipulates only those from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan belonging to the
Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community will benefit, not others.
On January 8, 2019, the then Minister of State for Home Kiran Rijiju gave a written answer to the
Lok Sabha - reproduced below - saying that there was no "authentic survey" or "accurate data" on
this, and for obvious reasons.
However, more than 30,000 people were staying on Long Term Visa (LTVs) who would benefit
from the CAA 2019, he declared.

A Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) which went into the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill of 2016
(that was passed in 2019) and submitted its report in January 2019 put the beneficiaries at 31,313
who had already been given LTVs - as captured below. The government had said that in future
inquiries would be made when fresh claims were made for citizenship.

It is being argued that in order to benefit under CAA, a Hindu will have to prove that s/he is a
national of Pakistan, Afghanistan or Bangladesh and that s/he entered India on/before December 31,
2014. On this basis, it is being said that someone who applied in the NRC and was rejected will not
then be able to avail the benefit of applying for citizenship under CAA.

This is a misleading argument because an illegal migrant can never ‘prove’ that s/he entered India
illegally. Imagine the universe of documents that can prove a person’s entry into a country – visas,
immigration stamps on passport and air/train/bus tickets. None of these are available in the case of
an illegal migrant. In fact, the very definition of exempted persons under the MHA notification of
September 7, 2015 is persons who entered into India “without valid documents including passport
or other travel documents” prior to December 31, 2014.

The application under the provisions introduced by CAA will have to be based on a self-declaration.
Otherwise, let the government put it's money where it's mouth is and make production of a
Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Afghan passport or national ID a condition precedent for applying for

4 Raghav Pandey, CAA and NRC: Those arguing that the two are discriminatory and tools of persecution must read up
on Constitution and Indian law, FIRSTPOST, (Dec. 21, 2019), https://www.firstpost.com/India/caa-and-nrc-those-
arguing-that-the-two-are-discriminatory-and-tools-of-persecution-must-read-up-on-constitution-and-Indian-law-
7811561.html
citizenship under the amended law. But this is not the intention at all. Hence, all that an applicant
will be required to produce is evidence of having been in India prior to the cut-off date. This can be
by way of phone bills, bank statements, school certificates, lease deeds, etc issued prior to this date.

Further, under Section 6B(3) introduced by the CAA, any proceeding pending against a person in
respect of illegal migration or citizenship shall stand abated and shall not bar such person from
applying for citizenship under the new law. The corollary is that only Muslims left out of the NRC
will be prosecuted for being illegal migrants and liable for punishment and deportation.

WHETHER CAA IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VIOLATING ARTICLE 14 OF THE

CONSTITUTION?

The biggest concern that is faced by this country after the introduction of the constitutional
amendment bill was that it is leading to the violation of article 14 of the Indian constitution. Article
14 ensures equality to each and every individual irrespective of his religion. It is not only essential
to look at how it violates fundamental rights but also to see that it sacrifices our constitutional
fraternity, equality and integrity that brings life to our fundamental rights. We need to research how
this issue is sucking the life of our fundamental rights and is the public reaction to the same
justified.

Our constitution makers were I think well aware about the conditions and situations that may arise
in the country and thus they added the clause of checks and balances. Under this system each organ
of the government will keep doing it’s work but the other two organs will keep a check on the first
that they should not do an act which is out of their limit and thus they might have added the power
of article 13 of the constitution. According to this power which is bestowed upon the judiciary they
can review the law made by the parliament and repeal them if they go against the basic structure of
the constitution.

The regulation appears to comprise openly discriminatory provisions which prima facie
discriminates migrants on the idea of their faith, however also at the score of their date of origin,
date of their access into India and their vicinity of house in India. Numerous petitions have already
been filed impugning statutory validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 (the Act) earlier
than the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein the problem is still underneath consideration.
However, amid the chaotic scenario, one element which is simply crystal is that, the Citizenship
Amendment Act, 2019 is not for removing citizenship of any man or woman. The regulation
intends to present citizenship to religiously persecuted immigrating persons from Hindu, Sikh,
Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian’s groups from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. As a count
number of truth, this law is not relevant to one.33 billion people of India, alternatively, is handiest
applicable to the above said magnificence of religiously persecuted immigrating individuals
proceeding to at ease Indian citizenship.

But this bill has caused a lot of confusion among the citizens of India, because if we take the
example of a citizen of India who is Muslim, she has been living in the country since 2005 but this
new bill can very easily chuck her out if she fails to produce her documents only because of her
choice of faith5.

So, it brings in the question of the validity of the right to equality. Thus our courts follow two
doctrines, the first being the doctrine of reasonable classification. According to this doctrine if the
classification is based on intelligible differentia and this differentia is in nexus with the law then this
kind of classification is permitted by law, thus it can be simplified as that the new act which keeps
Muslim and jains out of the minority group chosen then if this classification is based on certain
intelligible differentiation and that too which have nexus with law then this act would be absolutely
valid and will not be violating the right to equality. But the government needs to give proper
responses for that. Thus this is how we can clarify whether this act leads to violation of fundamental
rights or not.

Values are susceptible to being rendered vacuous by means of their vagueness. When the kingdom
flaunts its coercive strength, vagueness provides clean cover to the wary. In the numerous petitions
challenging the CAA, the Supreme Court of India could anchor the Indian republic on clearer
information of fraternity, dignity, and integrity and their relationship with secularism.

WHETHER THIS NEW AMENDMENT HAS CHANGED THE DYNAMICS OF

CITIZENSHIP LAW IN INDIA?

Citizenship is such a right provided to the people who were provided with different intentions and
with the continuous trails of amendment we have reached an entirely different concept of definition
of an Indian citizen. From the time of partition the theory of citizenship has been one of the main
concerns. When the constitution was being drafted this concept was added to lay down the
standards of voting for laying the course of the Indian democracy, the fate of the partition refugees

5 Manasvin Andra, Why the nationwide NRC is Unconstitutional, BAR AND BENCH, (Jan. 7, 2020),
https://www.barandbench.com/apprentice-lawyer/why-the-nationwide-nrc-is-unconstitutional
as electorate being the main concerning issue for the framers. At that point of time the framers were
more concerned to add this clause so that they may give the people a common identity and not as a
substantive issue.

We have followed modernism very well. And this is evident from our continuous behavior towards
various matters, as we can witness it in the case of citizenship. The recent changes in the citizenship
amendment act include three major changes, those are:

a) The first being stringent to the 6 religions, which are minority in Afghanistan,
Pakistan and Bangladesh. But this does not include Muslim minorities, which is a
major concern for the citizens of India.

b) The second is that now a person does not need to show that they have continuously
lived at a place for 11 years as 6 years would suffice for the government.

c) The third is that if a person violates any particular law in the country he would lose
his citizenship.

Now let us retrace back to the time this clause was added in the constitution. It is believed that when
this clause was added in the constitution the major concern behind it was just the partition that made
a lot of people refugees in both the countries and their living conditions got pathetic. So this
provision was added that if anybody who enters into the country after 25th January, 1950 will be
considered a citizen of India. So the sole motive behind them was to ensure a standard of, living to
everyone. According to the pointers made by Dr Rajendra Prasad, topics referring to the citizenship
of girls after marriage, in terms of the fact whether or not they could become residents or no longer,
must be left to be dealt with by means of Parliament in due course. It decided to restrict the dialogue
to the restricted question of laying down the qualifications for citizenship whilst the Constitution
would come into pressure. The problem that has been caused by the current amendment is that this
might lead to violation of article 14 of the citizen. But this regime needs to be read with illegal
migrants. This can be understood from one of the case laws Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India.
In this case it was held that it was the default of the government that it could not keep a check on
the illegal migrants who entered into the country and thus caused internal disturbance in the
country. So our government needs to become more aware.
WHAT IS NRC (NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZEN)

In the center, the NRC is an official record of the individuals who are lawful Indian residents. It
incorporates segment data p of those people who qualify as residents of India according to the
Citizenship Act, 1955. The register was first arranged after the 1951 Census of India and from that
point forward it has not been refreshed as of not long ago.

Up until this point, such a database has just been kept up for the territory of Assam.
Notwithstanding, on November 20, Home Minister Amit Shah announced during a parliamentary
meeting that the register would be stretched out to the whole nation.

Since the time of the execution of the NRC in Assam, there has been a developing interest for its
across the nation usage. Presently, many top BJP pioneers including Home Minister Amit Shah
have suggested that the NRC in Assam be actualized across India.

It adequately proposes to acquire an enactment that will empower the administration to distinguish
infiltrators who have been living in India unlawfully, keep them and expel them to where they
originated from.

Starting at now, the administration has fervently precluded the utilization from securing the CAA
for the updating of the NRC. Association Home Minister Amit Shah said the National Register of
Citizens (NRC), done in Assam, was not a religion-based exercise6.

WHETHER NRC BREACHES CAA OR IS IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The National Register of Citizens in Assam has been drawn up in a way that actually breaches the
Citizenship Act of 1955. The NRC used as its cut off point for citizenship midnight on March 24,
1971. But the Citizenship Act is absolutely explicit, it says every person born in India before July 1,
1987, in other words up to June 30, 1987, is a citizen by birth. And the Citizenship Act is the law of
the land.

The NRC has all the earmarks of being an endeavor to fix this situation of the implementation of the
CAA by the government by making another rundown to bring those forgotten about into the
overlap. Further, the administration seems to make the contention that it is constrained by law to

6 India Today Web Desk, What is NRC: All you need to know about National Register of Citizens, INDIA TODAY,
(Dec. 18, 2019), https://www.Indiatoday.in/India/story/what-is-nrc-all-you-need-to-know-about-national-register-of-
citizens-1629195-2019-12-18
make the NRC. In any case, Section 14A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 obviously shows that the
legislature has a decision with regards to giving character cards to residents. No reasons have been
offered with respect to why another specification practice is required when Aadhaar is set up.

NRC is away from Section 3 which gives citizenship by birth, and since NRC is being done under
the Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Card Rules, 2003, the Rules can't damage
the parent Act.

Moreover, there are not small issues with the formation of the NPR as there is no clearness on the
status of those considered to be "double citizens" 7. This is a grave oversight given that the
aftereffect of rejection from NPR is the loss of citizenship. It represents the impulsive idea of the
NRC and is the most clear sign yet that the activity is completely self-assertive and without reason
or rationale.

Given the total absence of verifiable setting and the absence of any legitimization for the activity,
the end that the NRC is clearly discretionary seems inescapable, as it fails the trial of "reasonable,
sensible, unbiased, straightforward, non-whimsical, unprejudiced, without partiality or nepotism, in
quest for advancement of solid rivalry and impartial treatment" as set s in Shayara Bano.

Along these lines, the joined NPR-NRIC practice is an away from State activity that is obviously
discretionary, and thus is violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

The right to live with dignity incorporates inside its ambit the minimum essentials of life, for
example, sufficient nourishment, apparel and shelter, just as the opportunity to move about and
collaborate with individual people. A demonstration that impedes pride is a hardship of the right to
life revered in Article 21, and it is clear that any type of torment or cruel treatment would remain
infringing upon this sacred assurance. As held by the Court in Francis, the right to security against
torment or remorseless treatment is verifiable in Article 21.

The extent of the right to live with poise was stretched out in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal
Corporation to incorporate inside its ambit the right to livelihood, with the Court perceiving that
"the most straightforward method of denying an individual of his right to life is deny him of his
methods for livelihood to the point of annulment8."

7Kaushik Deka, Expert view: Does India need CAA, NPR, NRC, INDIA TODAY, (Jan. 10, 2020),
https://www.Indiatoday.in/India/story/expert-view-does-India-need-caa-npr-nrc-1635665-2020-01-10
8 Prasanna Mohanty, CAA, NPR-NRIC V: Does India really need these nation-wide exercises?, BUSINESS TODAY,
(Jan. 14, 2020), https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/caa-npr-nric-does-India-really-need-these-
nation-wide-exercises-illegal-migrants-citizenship/story/393670.html
It is critical to portray the extent of the right to life and individual freedom as it is this central
assurance that is compromised by the apparition of the NRC. That an individual's life – and
presence – relied upon him having the option to demonstrate his citizenship was made inexhaustibly
clear by the NRC, with those avoided from the last rundown presently moping in packed
confinement places and confronting the possibility of detachment and statelessness.

The Assam NRC was confirmation that an enormous scope identification practice contingent totally
upon the compelling working of the organization was a catastrophe waiting to happen, with various
irregularities being found in both the draft and last arrangements of the NRC. That an administrative
mistake could strip a person of his citizenship is definitely not what the Court imagined when it
explained the substance of the right to live with respect in Francis – however pride showed up just
about a bit of hindsight in the scramble for incorporation in the Assam NRC.

Further, the narrative of the Assam NRC is one of legal hardness and savagery, with both the
Foreigners Tribunals and the Supreme Court liable for forcing hardships on those looking for
incorporation in the NRC. In a report on the procedures associated with the aggregation of the NRC,
Amnesty International featured how Foreigners Tribunals were "complicit in sustaining avoidance
and misuse" when hearing cases, and how the Tribunals' technique for working were loaded with
grave predispositions, partialities and discretionary dynamic procedures.

Exacerbating the situation was the way that the Supreme Court was directing the arrangement
practice and engaged the state government to set up more Foreigners Tribunals – guaranteeing that
solitary a couple of cases could ever arrive at the Apex Court.

The planning of the across the nation NRC will definitely follow a different procedure. Nonetheless,
the Assam NRC practice gives the prime case of how bureaucratic wastefulness and legal lack of
concern can join to trim down the substance of the right to life revered in Article 21. The particular
accomplishment of the NRC was exhibiting that crucial rights were totally dependent upon having
citizenship – and there is little to demonstrate that the administration will charge any better in the
usage of the NRIC9.

9 IANS, How is CAA different from Citizenship Act, 1955, TIMES OF INDIA, (Jan. 16,2020),
https://timesofIndia.Indiatimes.com/India/how-caa-is-different-from-citizenship-act-1955/articleshow/73303946.cms
GENERAL OPINION OF THE PUBLIC

The CAA 2019 needlessly brings religion into the ambit of citizenship in a secular country like
India. India is not a signatory to UN protocols on refugees. We need a holistic refugee/asylum
policy with some annual limits, if need be, like many other countries. The CAA is very vague about
refugees, the word in fact is not part of the amendment itself, which describes only conversion of
status from illegal to legal for six religions of three Islamic neighboring countries who entered
before 2015. It is this vagueness which also angers people in the northeast because many of the
"illegal migrants" are economic .migrants and not necessarily those persecuted on the basis of
religion. The proof of religious persecution is not defined well either which means in the current
form, virtually all illegal immigrants of those specified religions and countries get amnesty. Another
myth being peddled is that there are other ways Muslims can apply for citizenship and many have
obtained. So what's the big fuss? But those are "legal" Muslim immigrants. The CAA is about
illegal immigrants. So there is simply no way a persecuted Muslim illegal immigrant can get
citizenship. CAA also leaves out other categories like Jews and Atheists. In fact, atheist persecution
has been real in Bangladesh in the last one decade.

The illegal migrant will have to demonstrate their persecution, or fear thereof, on religious grounds
is not mentioned in the text of the Act (but can be found elsewhere, including its Statement of
Objects and Reasons). For a mechanism apparently intended to address discrimination, the CAA is
surprisingly discriminatory itself-in some cases, towards the same categories of people it deems
eligible for protection, and therefore, citizenship. There are several reasons why the CAA does not
stand up to scrutiny.

● Persecution can occur along several different lines, but CAA singling out 'religious
persecution' side-lines other equally serious forms of discrimination. Further, in purportedly
trying to redress minority persecution in countries that have a state religion, the Act, by
cherry-picking eligibility, itself qualifies as discriminatory.
● This preferential mechanism creates distinctions between minorities of the same faiths from
Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and their counterparts in other neighbouring
countries. For example, the candidature of the mostly Hindu Tamils from Sri Lanka is
proscribed because the country does not fall under CAA's purview. CAA thus presumes the
fallacy that minorities are persecuted only in Muslim-majority countries. Third, if CAA
seeks to protect those fleeing religious persecution, even if only of certain kinds and of
select geographical provenance, it should extend this protection to all who fall within said
categories. By setting a cut-off date, it randomly delegitimize citizenship claims, regardless
 of whether these emerge from the same persecuted minorities or countries it otherwise
prioritises. Fourth, of course is the CAA's incongruence with Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution, which is the right of all within the territory of India - not just its citizens - to
equality before the law, or equal protection. In fact, according to several constitutional law
experts, owing to its arbitrariness, lack of a sound rationale, or clarity in objective, the CAA
fails the same test of "reasonable classification" that has been invoked to justify its
constitutionality. There is no doubt that India needs solid refugee legislation. But the CAA,
which does not contain any reference to "refugees' ' in the entirety of its text, and, in my
view, fails tests of both constitutional and humanitarianism, is not it.

The CAA 2019 is malicious obfuscation of straight forward issues related to asylum seekers and
also depriving present Indian citizens of their citizenship through concomitant processes envisaged
in the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the now imminent enumeration in the
National Population Register (NPR). It seeks to initially deprive Muslims of citizenship and is
violative of Article 15 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), "No one shall be
arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality". India certainly
needs a national refugee law in conformity with International Human Rights and Humanitarian
Law. There have been non-official drafts submitted in the past thanks to the efforts of two former
Chief Justices of India, Justice P N Bhagwati and Justice J S Verma. Senior Advocate Rajeev
Dhavan has played an important role in coordinating efforts in this direction. The Union Ministry of
Home Affairs has chosen to ignore these excellent drafts. The present Citizenship Amendment Act
amendment is violative of both Indian and International law and does not provide any relief for any
genuine persecuted asylum seeker seeking refuge in India.

CONCLUSION
NRC provision got it’s mandate through section 14 A of the citizenship act of 1955 via amendment
act of 2003. Since then it has never been challenged. Now after the amendment act of 2019, which
has nothing to do with NRC, the citizenship act merely provides protection to the citizens of the
country from the new definition of illegal immigrants and rather provide citizenship to certain
people through some steps. Now the issue that this amendment act is facing is on the ground of
article 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Indian constitution. Since article 15 which deals with the protection
of citizens from untouchability and article 16 provide equal employment opportunity to all the other
citizens. none of the non citizens can do anything through these two articles. Hence, they remain
unchallenged. While article 21 is for the protection of personal liabilities of people and has nothing
to do with Citizenship Amendment Act. So we are only left with article 14 of the constitution that
provides the equality before law and equal protection of law. It can be challenged both by the
citizens as well as the non citizens. Thus, if any person wishes to bring action against the
government regarding NRC it is via Article 14.
If we look at the issue that this Citizenship Amendment Act has caused, then it has just provided
exemptions to certain classes of people who belong to countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and
Bangladesh who entered India before December 31, 2014. They are the people who have some
roots in India as it may be through their ancestors who may have been the citizens of India before it
got divided. They have participated in the freedom movement but just ended up living in any of
these countries. As a result until now they have been facing the issues of religious discrimination in
these countries because they are Muslim majority countries and they were the part of minority
group. Now the reason for their minority could be the massacres on the name of religion. As a result
these people ended themselves sheltering in India for their protection. These people are living most
of their lives in these countries by not even possessing basic human rights. So they had no other
option but to enter the country.
But after this act was passed the outrage of people that has been witnessed is huge but these
protestors have created false fear in the minds of Muslim citizens. That if this act is passed then
their citizenship might be taken away from them without any basis. But this is not in the case of
citizens who got their citizenship through descent, registration or naturalization. The one way of
citizenship that is in doubt is through birth but the government has given way out for it. They can
show themselves as the citizens by showing them any valid birth document which include birth
certificates, PAN card, passport, voter id, Aadhar card, bank account, driving license and many
more. And if the citizens are unable to show any of these documents then also the government has
provided many ways to prove his citizenship. He also has the option under Article 226 of the Indian
constitution to file a writ or Article 136 under Indian constitution to approach Supreme Court for it.
So, i really think that this fear should be taken out of each person’s mind as our constitution is that
supreme document which does ensure each person’s citizenship by providing each and every detail
of it. Thus there are no claims whether this new amendment act is correct or not but the point that is
required to be highlighted her is that no person can be removed from his country when our
constitution makers have ensured them their citizenship come what may.