SC asks Centre, Assam govt to respond to latest petition calling CAA rules 'anti-cons
SC asks Centre, Assam govt to respond to latest petition calling CAA rules 'anti-constitutional'
M.U.H
19/04/202467
The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday requested responses from both the Centre and the Assam government regarding a petition that challenges the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules of 2024. These rules aim to facilitate and oversee the granting of Indian citizenship to non-Muslim migrants who arrived from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan before December 31, 2014.
As reported by PTI, the SC bench, comprising the Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala took cognisance of a lawyer's submission who is appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Hiren Gohain, a resident of Guwahati. The bench, henceforth, issued notices to both the state government as well the Home Ministry and the Ministry of External Affairs.
The top court also said that this plea would be clubbed with other pending pleas on the CAA issue.
“The uncontrolled influx of illegal migrants from Bangladesh to Assam has caused huge demographic changes in Assam. The indigenous people, who were once the majority, have now become a minority in their own land," Gohain plea said.
The recent judicial bench, despite declining to halt the enforcement of the CAA Rules, has directed the Centre to address applications requesting a suspension of their implementation until the apex court adjudicates on the petitions contesting the validity of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2019.
Gohain, in his petition, contends that the CAA Rules of 2024 are "ultra vires to the Constitution," arguing that they are "patently discriminatory, evidently arbitrary, unlawful, and contravene the fundamental structure of the Constitution."
“It is stated that the impugned Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024 violates the petitioners’ fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (right to equality), 15 (right against discrimination on basis of religion, race, caste etc), 19 (freedom of speech and expression), 21 (right to life and personal liberty) etc of the Constitution,” the plea further notes.
Gohain asserted that he submitted the plea both personally and on behalf of a significant portion of the indigenous population residing in Assam, aiming to safeguard their fundamental rights.
Highlighting the pressing concern of the "unchecked" surge of illegal migrants from Bangladesh into Assam, the plea emphasized that this is not merely a communal matter.
“Neither it is a Hindu-Muslim or indigenous people v/s Bengali immigrant’s issue. Rather it is an issue of foreign infiltrators, be it Hindus or Muslims, who are inundating the land that for centuries has belonged to the indigenous people of Assam. In other words, it is an issue between Indians and non-Indians/ foreigners and one of grave importance for the entire nation,” it said.
“It is stated that according to the 2011 census the population of Assam was about 3.21 crores out of which only 1.34 crore people are indigenous Assamese. This figure includes the Assamese Muslims and indigenous people of the different tribes like Bodo, Missing, Rabha, Karbi etc.
Additionally, there are about 48 lakh people that comprise the tea tribes, it said.
"The sum total of the aforesaid two figures comes to about 1.82 crores. A major part of the remaining population of Assam essentially comprises Bengali speaking Hindus and Muslims and a minor part comprises Hindi/other language speaking people who have migrated from the other states of India,” the petition said, as reported by PTI.
The Modi government initiated the process of granting Indian citizenship to persecuted non-Muslim migrants—Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, and Christians—from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh by unveiling the rules on March 11, just days before the announcement of the Lok Sabha elections.
According to a gazette notification, the rules came into effect immediately upon their unveiling.
The highly contentious CAA, which ignited protests across the country in late 2019 and early 2020 due to its perceived discriminatory clauses, continues to polarize opinions.