Plea in SC seeks stay on implementation of CAA
The application, filed by IUML has sought the court's direction to ensure no coercive action is taken against people belonging to Muslim community pending adjudication of writ petitions
PTI
-
College students protest against CAA, in Guwahati on Tuesday. PHOTO: PTI
New Delhi, 12 March
An application was filed in the
Supreme Court on Tuesday seeking a direction to the Centre to stay the
implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Rules, 2024 till the pendency of
petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Citizenship (Amendment)
Act, 2019 before the apex court.
The application was filed a day
after the Centre implemented the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, by
notifying the rules four years after the contentious law was passed by
Parliament to fast-track citizenship for undocumented non-Muslim migrants from
Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who came to India before 31 December,
2014.
The application, filed by the
Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), which is one of the petitioners who have
challenged the citizenship law, has sought the court's direction to ensure no
coercive action is taken against people belonging to the Muslim community
pending adjudication of the writ petitions. Muslims cannot apply for Indian
citizenship under the CAA. It has urged the apex court to direct the Centre to
provisionally permit people belonging to the Muslim community also to apply for
citizenship and submit a report on their entitlement. A separate application
has also been filed by the Democratic Youth Federation of India seeking a stay
on the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024.
The apex court is already seized of
a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act (CAA).
In its application, IUML has urged
the court to stay the "continued operation of the impugned provisions of
Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019; and Citizenship Amendment Rules 2024, which
would result in valuable rights being created and citizenship being granted to
persons belonging to only certain religions, thereby resulting in a fait
accompli situation, during the pendency of the present writ petition".
Seeking a stay on the rules, the
application said about 250 petitions challenging the provisions of the CAA were
pending before the top court. "If in case this court finally decided the
CAA as unconstitutional, then these people who would have got citizenship under
the impugned Act and rules would have to be deprived of their citizenship or
stripped of their citizenship, which would create anomalous situation," it
said. "Therefore, it is in the best interest of every person to defer the
implementation of CAA and impugned rules till this court finally decides the
matter," the application said.
It said the Act was passed in 2019
and the government waited for over four years to notify the rules. "The
government did not consider it as urgent to implement it for past 4.5 years.
Therefore, to wait till final decision of this court would not affect anybody's
rights or interest," the application said.
It said the IUML had in its
petition itself stated that it was not against giving citizenship to migrants. "However,
its position is that this is a legislation which is based on exclusion of a
religion. Since the CAA discriminates on the basis of religion, it strikes at
the root of the concept of secularism, which is the basic structure of
Constitution," it said.
With the unveiling of the rules on
Monday, days ahead of the announcement of the Lok Sabha elections, the Modi
government will now start granting Indian citizenship to persecuted non-Muslim
migrants -- Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis and Christians -- from
Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.
The rules comes into force with
immediate effect, according to a gazette notification. The contentious CAA had
sparked protests in various parts of the country in late 2019 and early 2020
over alleged discriminatory provisions. While refusing to stay the operation of
the law, the top court had on 18 December, 2019 issued notices to the Centre on
the pleas.
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *