New Delhi: The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) has filed a petition, urging the Supreme Court to declare the Citizenship Amendment Act unconstitutional.
The petition, filed by Advocate Pallavi Pratap, said the government brought the Act with 'malafide intention and therefore it should be declared unconstitutional.'
It said the reason for bringing in the legislation is to provide citizenship to 14-15 lakh Hindus, who have been found to be illegal immigrants in the National Register of Citizens (NRC), while Muslims, who have been found to be illegal immigrants, will either be deported or kept in detention centres or concentration camps.
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, popularly known as CAB, seeks to provide Indian citizenship to non-Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. Lok Sabha had cleared the Bill on Monday.
The Act amended the Citizenship Act, 1955, and granted Indian nationality to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians who come to India after facing religious persecution in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan even if they don't possess proper documents.
This was an election promise of the BJP in the 2014 and the 2019 Lok Sabha polls.
Congress to move Supreme Court soon
The Congress, which opposed the bill tooth and nail both in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, is expected to challenge the Act in Supreme Court soon.
On Wednesday, senior Congress leader Abhishek Singhvi said that the legislation will be legally challenged as it is "highly suspect" in terms of constitutionality.
"It is certainly a legislation highly suspect in constitutionality in terms of basic structure and legal validity."
"I have no doubt that it deserves to be challenged and will in the near future be challenged (in court)," said Singhvi, a Congress spokesperson and a senior lawyer.
Senior Congress leader and senior lawyer P Chidambaram said that the bill was a "brazen assault" on the fundamental ideas enshrined in the Constitution and the fate of the law will be decided in the Supreme Court.
Another Congress leader Manish Tewari said that the bill was "unconstitutional" and is going to be challenged in the apex court.
More parties to join
Asserting that the Bill is against the basic structure of the Constitution, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind on Wednesday said it will challenge the legislation.
Terming the passing of the Bill in Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha a "tragedy", Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani said the Bill is against the basic structure of the Indian Constitution and his organisation will challenge it in the apex court because the legislature has not done its job honestly.
"Now the judiciary can make a better decision on it. Advocates have been consulted in this regard and a petition is being drafted," he said in a statement.
Madani said that the effects of this Bill may not be visible now, but when the NRC is conducted all over the country, the legislation will hurt millions of Muslims badly.
"This is not a Hindu-Muslim matter at all, it is a matter of fundamental rights of human being and citizens," he asserted.
Legal challenges
The bill, in essence, adds a proviso to Section 2 of the Citizenship Act, removing the above-mentioned communities from under the definition of "illegal migrants"; they can apply for naturalisation of citizenship.
"Provided that any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, 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 thereunder, shall not be treated as illegal migrant for the purposes of this Act"
For even the groups mentioned in the bill, there were conditions imposed. It applies only to those who were already in India on or before December 31, 2014. The requirements under the Citizenship Act - "testification of character", a mandatory time period of residence - still applied, the government said. Earlier, a candidate applying for naturalisation would have had to reside in India for a period of 11 years (or been in a government job); this amendment cuts the requirement down to five years.
No Indian Muslims will be affected by the law, the BJP assured. Those outside the ambit of the amendment can still apply for citizenship via the legal route. What does happen is that they remain "illegal migrants", while the rest of the groups mentioned in the amendment - subject to fulfilment of conditions - can apply for naturalisation of citizenship.
Questions were raised why the bill did not include provisions for persecuted minorities like Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar - with whom India shares a border. And, what of persecuted Muslim sects like Ahmediyas and groups like Muhajirs, Balochis - a community for whom Modi had spoken out in 2016 - in Pakistan, who might be Muslims in faith.
There are also questions why there were no provisions even for Tamil Hindus from Buddhist-majority Sri Lanka. And, the opposition questioned, why was it that only the Muslim-majority states of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh find inclusion in the bill? Sri Lanka is a country still reeling under the fissures of its civil war, and Myanmar is currently facing a UN hearing for "genocide of Rohingya minorities".
Would this form a sort of discrimination which would run directly against Article 14 of the Constitution, which, in its very wide scope, assures equality for all under the law?
(With inputs from PTI and The Week)
