India is the largest democracy in the world. It should always maintain the
spirits mentioned The Constitution of India,1950. It should not implement laws
which affects its own essence of Secularism and equality. The Constitutional
Amendment Act,2019 or CAA,2019 was introduced by the Government of India to
overcome he way long issue of illegal immigrants in India. The bill basically
allows immigrants only from 3 countries - Pakistan , Afghanistan and Bangladesh
and immigrants of only 6 religions- Hindus, Sikhs, Jainism, Buddhism, Parsis and
Christianity to be considered as a citizen of India if they have entered India
on or before 31st December, 2014 without valid passport or documents.
India is a secular country. SECULARISM means that there is no official religion
as such. The act excludes Islamic community. It violates the spirit of
secularism. After this amendment, a Hindu or a Jain, or a Buddhist or a
Christian can enter the country and become a citizen but a Muslim cannot. In the
case of SR. Bommai V Union Of India
, it is observed Secularism is not
an anti-god but a believe to be a stay in a free society. Let me explain this by
a simple example, two persons name Ashwan and Atif entered India illegally.
According to Citizenship Amendment Act,2019, both will be regarded as illegal
, under section 2(1)(b) of the act.
If both of them gets married with a Indian spouse and produced any offspring,
their children too would declared as illegal immigrant
under section 3(1)
(c) of the act. But with this amendment in the act, Ashwan and his family who
belongs to Hindu religion will easily get the citizenship, but Atif and his
family who belongs to Muslim community will not get the citizenship. So, like
Atif's family many Muslim family will be affected by this act and will suffer
statelessness and injustice.
Speaking about another violation of the Constitution, i.e., right to equality.
Article 14 guarantees to every person the right to equality before law or equal
protection of the law. In the case of Ramesh Prasad V State Of Bihar
it is observed that aim of both concept of equality before law
equal protection before law
is the equal justice.
The act allows the afore mentioned countries and mentioned religion only, if
they have arrived the before 31st December,2014 and they have done so to escape
religious persecution. This may sound quite fair but selecting only six religion
and only 3 countries and excluding some Muslim community and other neighbouring
nations are really a violation of right to equality.
This brings us to other criteria of determining whether CAA,2019 is in favour of
citizen or not. The criteria is called the test of Reasonable Classification
The main objective of the Government is to protect people from Pre-partition,
then why to include Afghanistan and why not Sri Lanka, Myanmar.
The country of Myanmar and Sri Lanka has also faced religious and ethnic
persecution. Myanmar was part of British India until 1930, then why not include
it? Including Afghanistan is seriously does not fulfil the main motive of the
Act. Talking about Sri Lanka, majority of people there are Buddhists but what
about Tamils who are counted as minorities. These minorities face discrimination
in the country. But the government didn't care to include them too in the Act.
Talking about the classification tests, there are three tests namely objective
of law, intelligible differentia and rational nexus. The objective of law
through the CAA,2019 is clearly arbitrary.the concept of Arbitrariness can be
seen in a number of cases such as E.P. Royappa V Union Of India
Maneka Gandhi V Union Of India
 . CAA, 2019 creates an arbitrary
difference between illegal immigrants on the basis of religion. It guarantees
benefits to some religion while excluding only one religion which is not
justified under any law.
Intelligible differentia means two differentiated classes must know the class
which law protects and the class which the law doesn't protects. Rational nexus
means the two separated class must have some connection between them. The
classification done is not according to the law. There are many cases of
violations and mass murders against minority of Tamils in Sri Lanka of Indian
origin. In the case of D.S. Nakara V Union Of India,
held to be arbitrary and unprincipled as they were not acceptable for persuasive
reason in its favour.
The said classification had no rational nexus with the object sought to be
achieved. So, it is very much essential to have some connection between the
class separated which tends to achieve.
At last, lets discuss about NRC which has led to widespread destruction in the
state of Assam. Many people who were citizens of Assam since 1978 has lost their
NRC basically asks the citizen to show the proof of your grand parents
citizenship back in 1980's. it does not check your citizenship, despite having
all you adhaar card, ration card, pan card and all your documents, if you
grandparents does not have the proof, you will be regarded as illegal
But no worries to non-muslims, they will easily procure a
citizenship according to the amendment ,2019. What about the Asaamese who were
excluded in this test. Imagine, if this NRC is implemented countrywide, lakhs of
people will be homeless and stateless.
- 1994 AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3)1
- Provided that any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi
or Christian community from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, who
entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014 and who has
been exempted by the central government by or under clause (c) of
sub-section (2) of section 3 of the passport (entry into India) act, 1920 or
from the application of the provisions of the foreigners act, 1946 or any
rule or order made there under, shall not be treated as illegal migrant for
the purposes of this act.
- on or after the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003,
where - (i) both of his parents are citizens of India; or (ii) one of whose
parents is a citizen of India and the other is not an illegal migrant at the
time of his birth, shall be a citizen of India by birth.
- 1978 AIR 327,1978 SCR (1) 787
- (1974) 3 SCC 3
- (1978) 1 SCC 248