Over 200 Petitions Against CAA — Here Are The Arguments Five Key Petitioners Are Making

On 19 March 2024, the Supreme Court (SC) issued notice to the Union government on staying implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

The apex court has asked the government to respond in three weeks. Next hearing in the case will be held on 9 April. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising argued to at least stay the implementation by the next hearing, but the court declined it.

A total of 237 petitions have been filed in the highest court against much talked-about CAA. Here's a look at the main contentions raised by five key petitioners.

Asaduddin Owaisi

All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen chief Asaduddin Owaisi’s petition can be summarised into four principle arguments.

First, it claims the CAA violates Article 14 (equality before law) of the Indian Constitution by classifying migrants on religious grounds. According to Owaisi, not offering a faster path to citizenship for Muslims from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh has no reasonable justification.

Second, the petition argues the CAA infringes upon Article 21 (protection of life and liberty). By making it harder for undocumented Muslim immigrants to remain in India, the CAA potentially leads to their deportation depriving them of liberty without a fair legal process.

Third, the petition asserts the CAA violates Article 25 (freedom of religion), the right to freedom of religion. Owaisi says the act incentivises conversion to religions included in the CAA by offering a faster path to citizenship, which is an incentive for religious conversion, undermining religious freedom.

Owaisi’s fourth contention is that CAA violates Article 51 (state needs to promote international peace) of Indian Constitution and Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 2 of ICCPR prohibits discrimination against religious beliefs of anyone.

Jairam Ramesh

Senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh has challenged CAA on nine grounds. Most of them centre around perceived arbitrariness and exclusion in classification of migrants.

Ramesh contends that geographical and religious categorisation in the act are arbitrary and do not align with the goals which CAA aims to achieve.

Ramesh further contends that the act doesn’t include all persons facing religious persecution, treating equals as unequals.

Petition urges that those not included would be deprived of protection under equality of life and right to life principles enshrined in articles 14 and 21 respectively.

The last contention raised by Ramesh is that CAA violated clause 6 of Assam Accord signed in 1985. His argument is that CAA would tamper with the cultural, social, linguistic identity and heritage of Assam.

Mahua Moitra 

Disgraced former Trinamool MP Mahua Moitra’s main concern is the exclusion of Muslims from the act. She argues that the exclusion violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

Moitra further contends that CAA is violative of secularism and is therefore antithetical to the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution.

Secularism has been held by the SC as a feature of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Indian Union Muslim League (IUML)

IUML challenged CAA even before Presidential assent in December 2019.

In its petition, IUML stated that exclusion of Muslims from the act is religion based discrimination. According to IUML, it goes against the idea of India, according to which all faiths are treated equally.

IUML further contends that yardstick for persecution is not uniformly applied as CAA excludes Myanmar while includes Afghanistan, which was not under British rule. They also pointed out the exclusion of Sri Lankan Tamils and Myanmaar’s Rohingyas from the purview of CAA.

In its petition, IUML states that CAA along with National Register of Citizens (NRC) will result in harm to the Muslims. “With the passage of the Amendment Act, and the nationwide implementation of NRC, it shall ensure that those illegal migrants who are Muslims shall be prosecuted,” stated the petition

Government Of Kerala

Communist-ruled Kerala was the first state to challenge CAA in the Supreme Court. The petition claims the CAA discriminates based on religion, violating articles 14, 21 and 25.

Kerala further challenges the Passport (entry into India) Amendment Rules (2015) and Foreigners (Amendment) Order (2015) as unconstitutional.

The petition goes beyond the Indian Constitution, arguing the CAA and amendments violate articles 14 and 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights regarding seeking asylum and nationality rights. It also cites Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which guarantees equal protection under the law and prohibits discrimination.

Most of these petitions centre around violation of secular principles. In an interview with India Today, Senior Advocate Harish Salve had said that all these arguments are based on wrong premises. He stated that secularism means anyone is free to follow any religion. CAA doesn’t impact this right.