 "Demystified CAA for the common man: It includes and does not exclude")
The Citizenship Act of 1955, designed for the purpose of acquiring and determining Indian citizenship, traces its origins to the constitutional provisions of our country. The shift from the initially implemented Citizenship Act of 1955 by virtue of the 1986 and 2003 amendments signifies how India as a country is shifting towards a citizenship law from jus soli (citizenship by birth) to jus sanguinis (citizenship by descent). It has undergone multiple changes, but the amendment proposed and implemented by the NDA Government has been, by so far, the most protested one Indian political economy has ever witnessed.
It is a well-established fact that historically, there has been continuous migration across India’s borders from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh into India.
The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA, 2019), provides a pathway to citizenship for refugees from these countries who have faced religious oppression, notably individuals belonging to Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Christians, Parsi, and Sikh communities who migrated before December 31, 2014.
Initially, migrants to India had a waiting period of up to 11 years. Now, with the CAA 2019, migrants belonging to the above-mentioned category have only a waiting period of up to five years, and the categories of persons not mentioned in the amendment law do not have an opportunity to avail the fastrack process of obtaining citizenship.
Nevertheless, the old laws shall still apply to the rest in the same manner as they were applied prior to the amendment. The amendment in question is exempted in its application to certain parts of north-east India.
Impact Shorts
More ShortsProtestors, however, argue that the CAA violates the Assam Accord, exacerbating apprehensions about identity and culture. Additionally, critics contend that the Act discriminates against Muslims, exacerbating religious tensions and eroding India’s secular fabric.
The proposed legislation also includes changes concerning Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) cardholders. The CAA proposes modifications to the Act, allowing for the cancellation of OCI registration in case the individual breaches any laws specified by the central government, however, after providing an opportunity to be heard as per the principles of natural justice.
This Act was brought in for humanitarian reasons and the government’s commitment to ensuring security for persons under threat of religious persecution. If that’s true, one needs to assess why there were nationwide protests breaking out in 2019 and currently after the notification of CAA rules in 2024. There are prevalent misconceptions regarding the citizenship of Indians, which are under no threat from the newly implemented law.
The CAA is under heavy scrutiny by the citizens of India and by international stakeholders as discriminatory against a primary minority religion and persons who migrated to India due to the threat of religious persecution post-2014. The protests and public upheaval against the Act cannot be understood in a uniform sense.
The common discourse of dissent against the CAA is that it is perceived to apply to Indian citizens. The answer to it is quite simple. The CAA does not apply to existing Indian citizens at all, irrespective of their religion.
Another key question that must be understood is the fact that CAA is not applicable to migrants who have entered India post-2014, regardless of their religion or faith. CAA is largely misconstrued on the basis that it is supplementary to the National Register of Citizens, and the government has made it clear that both are in no way connected. The NRC issue was primarily concerning Assam, as previously mentioned, due to the signed Assam Accord.
Article 14, as envisioned by the drafters of the Constitution of India, did not restrict its application only to citizens but to all persons. Speaking purely from a legal perspective, the government has discretionary powers to determine who gets citizenship, as it is under their purview. In “Ganga Ram v. Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 377 [2],” Hon’ble Justice Sastri had succinctly put that the constitution does not require that the classification under Article 14 “need not be scientifically perfect or logically complete”. He has also suggested an underlying test of reasonableness and proportionality behind the exercise of power by the legislation. The Hon’ble SC, in a plethora of cases, has emphasised that the test must be applied, taking into consideration practical realities and implication, and not doctrinaire, keeping in mind the virtues and values of the golden triangle.
The amendment has been challenged by the Indian Union Muslim League (“Indian Union of Muslim League v Union of India WP (c) 1470/2019”) which was tagged with other petitions from individuals and political parties. The core contention of these petitions is their contravention of Article 14, as the right to equality is not guaranteed to all persons. [1] They contend that while the object sought is to grant citizenship to persons facing religious persecution, it has no rational nexus to the action sought by the law as it segregates people based on religion and country of origin and not based on those who are facing religious persecution. The matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble SC, which has yet to issue an order in this regard. Moreover, there have been petitions filed in the Hon’ble SC since the official notification of CAA Rules, presently.
Finally, one needs to understand that India today, after many efforts in the last decade, has ultimately reached a position to lay down its own laws and policies without bothering about international pressures.
Moreover, whether CAA is constitutionally valid or not is still pending before the SC. Hence, further uproar and protests on the subject, especially by those who believe it takes away the rights of existing citizens, only become either a political or academic issue unless the protesters indicate they do not have faith in the apex court of the country, which would be very unfair. Lawmakers should be allowed to do their jobs and the courts should do theirs.
Endless debates and controversies won’t take the nation ahead; we can’t afford this at this point when the Indian Renaissance is at its peak with a strong economy and its global positioning having changed by leaps and bounds thanks to the diplomatic stern stands taken, especially in the last five years.
No one can deny that the government of the day is working round-the-clock to make up for the lost opportunities for India on the global stage on a day-in and day-out basis to the best extent it can. Hence, let’s focus on progress and positives rather than getting entangled in debates that, after the final court verdict, may not hold much relevance and are a lot in anticipation.
The writer is an advocate in the Madras High Court and author of the book, ‘Defaulter’s Paradise Lost: Demystifying the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016’. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
