Navigating The Citizenship Amendment Act: A Critical Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 or CAA has been given the nod for
implementation on March 13, 2024. The Act is an alteration of the Citizenship Act of
1955, that aims at enabling persecuted minorities from neighboring countries
including Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh to acquire Indian Citizenship.
Under this Act, migrants of various communities like Sikhs, Jains, Christians,
arriving by 31 December 2014 are eligible for this citizenship. This is a welcoming
change as previously these people had to wait for 11 years while applying through
the process of naturalized citizenship. The rationale behind the same is to address
the plight faced by religious minorities in the above-mentioned countries. By
providing an expediated way towards Indian Citizenship, India intends to uphold
its tradition of welcoming those trying to escape fear of persecution. The long-
standing concerns regarding long-standing humanitarian issued faced by the
marginalized communities in the neighboring countries played a significant role in
the creation of this legislation. Additionally, by implementing this legislation, the
ruling party fulfils its electoral promise of safeguarding the rights of persecuted
minorities and fostering a sense of belonging among them within India. CAA
constitutes a significant policy framework which is aimed at addressing citizenship
issues in India. Critics have constantly argued that this has the potential to render a
huge Muslim population stateless on failing the NRC verification process. However,
the relief provided to various minority groups will be immense and help those in
need fostering regional stability.

ALLEGATIONS OF DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE

However, this humanitarian effort was met with criticism world wide on its alleged
discriminatory eligibility criteria based on religion. The UN High Commission for
Human rights even commented noting, that while the effort was welcomed, it
should follow an unbiased “national asylum system”.1 Despite the Commission and
1
Spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Archived 19 December 2019 at
the Wayback Machine, Jeremy Laurence, United Nations High Commission for Refugees, Geneva (13
the Islamic Community raising concerns about the Act, various countries like Russia,
Maldives and France have considered the same as an internal matter of India and
chosen to respect the legislation. Despite the criticisms received, the stance of the
Indian Government does provide a rational for the specificity of the edibility criteria.
This stems from the decreasing proportion of minority communities in Pakistan,
Afghanistan and Bangladesh whose constitutions provide for a specific state
religion, leading to persecution against those from the Jain, Buddhist, Hindu and
Chirstian communities. These claims of the Indian Government are not baseless
however and originate from discriminatory laws of the relevant countries. The
Blasphemy laws of Pakistan stand as an example that discriminate against religious
minorities with specific focus on Hindu girls in the Sindh region. The laws in
Bangladesh and Afghanistan are no different.

NATIONWIDE PROTESTS

The criticisms of CAA weren’t just ideological, but rather faced significant
opposition all over the country in the form of protests. The focal point of these
protests has been the exclusion of Muslims and other communities from the benefit
of accelerated Indian Citizenship which is violative of Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution. The protests erupted particularly in Delhi with major sectors being
Jamia Milia Islamia and Shaleen Bagh. Students in huge numbers were arrested for
staging protests against the law, many of these protests even turning violent. Many
people involved in the anti-CAA protests call the movement to be an equality
Citizenship Movement.

Protestors in Assam and other North-Eastern States oppose grant of citizenship in its
totality fearing demographic change. This fear stems from the Assam Accords
previously signed between the Central Government and the refugees. Other
dissenters argue that this accelerated citizenship protects these communities from
the stringent requirements of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) even if they
fail to prove their nationality. The threat of Muslims being rendered stateless is
another reason for the extreme nature of these protests. There exist various

December 2019).
stakeholders’ perspectives regarding the marginalization and the erosion of India’s
secular landscape.

THE GOVERNMENT’S STANCE ON NECESSITY

In response to the various protests and criticisms, the government maintained its
stance in the necessity of the CAA in providing relief to persecuted minorities, it
emphasized the humanitarian aspect of the legislation and reiterated its commitment
to protecting the rights of vulnerable communities. The government reiterated that
the purpose

of the Act was to provide citizenship to the 6 communities and not revoke any.
Additionally, other minority groups like Ahmediyas and Rohingyas can still seek
Indian Citizenship through naturalization and all minorities including the 6
communities have to comply with Third Schedule of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
Strategies employed to address concerns and mitigate dissent included outreach
efforts to clarify misconceptions about the CAA, engaging with stakeholders
through dialogue and highlighting the benefits of the legislation in fostering
inclusivity and furthering India’s humanitarian efforts.

CAA’S VALIDITY AND THE SUPREME COURT

In December of 2023, verdict on CAA was pronounced by the Supreme Court with
respect to the Assam Accords and the validity of the Act. The Supreme Court upheld
the validity of 6A that, against the plea of the Indian Union Muslim League. The
claims are regarding the discriminatory nature and violation of Art 14 by the
implementation of CAA along with NRC. The contention stems from the idea that
making religion a basis for citizenship, it goes against the spirit of Indian secularism.
Another issue is regarding the difference in timelines provided by CAA and Section
6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The government responded to the same noting how
the law is particularly tailored to enable only the 6 communities mentioned to seek
accelerated citizenship. There are various pleas presented before the Court that has
refused to grant any interim stay without hearing the center’s plea.

The various please before the Supreme Court by various sects are an indication of
the dissenting viewpoints on the matter.

ANTICIPATED IMPACT AND CONCLUSION

Looking ahead, the Citizenship Amendment Act holds the potential to positively
impact India’s socio-political landscape in several ways. By offering citizenship to
persecuted minorities, it reaffirms India’s commitment to humanitarian values and
strengthens its position in safeguarding the interests of the refugee and the
oppressed. This act has the potential to foster social cohesion and integration by
providing marginalized communities with a sense of security and belonging.
Despite the positive impact of the Act, the current response indicates social
disharmony between the various sects on the matter in the upcoming time.
However, his move does offer promising results for India in the global stage for its
efforts in mitigating the suffering of persecuted minorities. Additionally, this
showcases India’s contribution to rights and plight of the refugee and India’s
standing with respect to diplomatic efforts in building stronger ties with
neighboring countries.