SC decides to examine constitutional validity of Citizenship Amendment Act, refuses to stay its operation; next hearing on 22 Jan
The top court issued notice to the Centre and sought its response by the second week of January next year on a batch of pleas challenging the Citizenship Amendment Act.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to examine the constitutional validity of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), but refused to stay its operation.
The top court issued notice to the Centre and sought its response by the second week of January next year on a batch of pleas challenging the CAA.
A bench comprising Chief Justice SA Bobde and Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant fixed 59 petitions, for hearing on 22 January, next year.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to examine the constitutional validity of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), but refused to stay its operation.
The newly amended law seeks to grant citizenship to non-Muslim migrants belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, Jain and Parsi communities who came to the country from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan on or before 31 December, 2014.
The top court issued notice to the Centre and sought its response by the second week of January next year on a batch of pleas challenging the CAA. A bench comprising Chief Justice SA Bobde and Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant fixed 59 petitions, including those filed by the Indian Union Muslim League and Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, for hearing on 22 January, next year.
The bench also agreed to the submission of lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay that common people should be made aware about the aim, objects and the contents of the CAA and asked Attorney General K Venugopal, representing the Centre, to consider using audio-visual medium to make citizens aware of the legislation. Venugopal agreed to the suggestion and said the needful would be done by the government.
During the hearing, some lawyers appearing for petitioners sought a stay on the operation of the newly amended law. One of the lawyers, appearing for a petitioner hailing from Assam, said "Let it not be implemented... five students in the Northeast have died." The Attorney General opposed the submission and said there are as many as four judgements which have held that a law cannot be stayed after being notified.
"We are not going to grant a stay," the bench said, adding that arguments on granting stay can be advanced on 22 January, the next date of hearing.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who represented one of the parties, however, said there was no need to seek the stay on the operation of CAA as it has not come into force as several things like framing of rules under the law are yet to be done. Another senior advocate Kapil Sibal agreed with Dhavan's submission and said, "We have nothing to say right now".
The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), one of the petitioners which has challenged the CAA, said in its plea that it violates the fundamental right to equality and intends to grant citizenship to a section of illegal immigrants by making an exclusion on the basis of religion.
Parliament recently cleared the Act, which grants citizenship rights to religious minorities such as Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Parsis, Jains and Buddhists, who have come to India on or before 31 December, 2014. President Ram Nath Kovind gave assent to the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 on 12 December , turning it into an Act.
The plea by IUML, filed through advocate Pallavi Pratap, seeks an interim stay on the operation of CAB and the Foreigner Amendment (Order), 2015 and Passport (Entry Into Rules), Amendment Rules, 2015.
The petition alleged that the government's CAB was against the basic structure of the Constitution and intended to explicitly discriminate against Muslims as the Act extended benefits only to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians.
The plea filed by Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, has said that the Act is a "brazen attack" on core fundamental rights envisaged under the Constitution and treats "equals as unequal". In his petition, Ramesh has said that substantial questions of law, including whether religion can be a factor to either acquire or deny citizenship in India, arises for consideration of the court as it is a "patently unconstitutional" amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955.
"The impugned Act creates two classifications, viz, classification on basis of religion and the classification on the basis of geography and both the classifications are completely unreasonable and share no rational nexus to the object of the impugned Act i.e., to provide shelter, safety and citizenship to communities who in their native country are facing persecution on grounds of religion," the plea has said.
Several petitions have been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, including by Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader Manoj Jha, Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra, AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi.
Several other petitioners include Muslim body Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, All Assam Students Union (AASU), Peace Party, CPI, NGOs 'Rihai Manch' and Citizens Against Hate, advocate ML Sharma, and law students have also approached the apex court challenging the Act.
Find latest and upcoming tech gadgets online on Tech2 Gadgets. Get technology news, gadgets reviews & ratings. Popular gadgets including laptop, tablet and mobile specifications, features, prices, comparison.
Farmers' Protest Updates: ML Khattar should tell Centre to repeal laws instead of holding outreach events, says Hooda
Farmers' Protest LIVE Updates: On Sunday, Haryana Police had used water cannons and lobbed teargas shells to prevent the farmers from marching towards the venue of Khattar's event
The farmers have not only categorically refused to engage with the said 'expert panel', which includes two domain experts and two farmer leaders, but have also asserted that their tractor march on Republic Day will be held as per schedule
Bhupinder Singh Mann recuses himself from SC-appointed panel to resolve deadlock between farmers, Centre
The 81-year-old resident of Punjab’s Batala is the national president of BKU and was also an Independent Rajya Sabha member from 1990 to 1996