Supreme Court Refuses to Stay CAA Implementation, Gives Government Three Weeks to Respond
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday afternoon refused to impose a stay on the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The court has also given the government three weeks, until April 8, to respond to the 237 petitions challenging the law, which was notified last week, just days before the Lok Sabha elections.
In addition, petitioners were allowed to contact any individual granted citizenship before that date; both senior lawyers Kapil Sibal and Indira Jaising made this request, as Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (representing the government) said, ‘‘I am not making any statement.’’
Mr. Mehta had originally asked for four weeks to respond to the petitions.
He told the court, “We will have to file a detailed affidavit on the merits and demerits of the 237 petitions. 20 interim applications have already been filed and many are in the pipeline. In fact, we need four weeks.”
The case was heard by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Mishra. Among the petitioners were the Indian Union Muslim League (a political party based in Kerala) and opposition leaders Congress’s Jairam Ramesh and Trinamool’s Mahua Moitra.
The next hearing will be on April 9.
The petitioners - who did not oppose the request for more time - demanded a stay on the “discriminatory” implementation of the CAA, which they say is against the Muslim community.
The petitioners told the court that they would not oppose the government’s request for more time to study the challenges, but they urged the bench presided over by the Chief Justice to impose a stay on the implementation.
In 2019, several challenges were filed after the Citizenship Bill received approval from Parliament.
However, the court did not stop the implementation because the rules had not been notified. Last week, while arguing in this matter, Mr. Sibal said that the situation no longer applies, as the rules have now been notified.
In response to the court’s statement on the government’s request for more time, he said, “The problem is … the notification was issued four years later. Under the law, the rules should have been notified within six months. Now the problem is - if someone gets citizenship, it will be impossible to reverse it.”
He told the court, “They (in 2019) said they were not notifying the rules, so no stay was imposed. ('The question of ‘refusal to stay’ does not arise …) There were no rules then, so there was no stay,” he said, presenting his argument to the court to impose a stay until the resolution of the challenges to the citizenship law.
He asked, referring to this allegation of Congress and other opposition parties, “Why did they wait for four years?”
“Let them have as much time as they want, but do not grant citizenship in the meantime,” Indira Jaising argued.
Mr. Mehta then said that the fact that the rules were notified before the election was irrelevant.
Under this CAA, non-Muslim migrants fleeing religious persecution from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan can apply for citizenship. People from the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian communities from these three countries are eligible if they entered on or before December 31, 2014.
The opposition criticized the government for the timing of the law’s implementation, four years after parliamentary approval and just days before the general election. Mr. Ramesh said that this step was “clearly prepared to polarize elections, especially in West Bengal and Assam.”
Trinamool chief and Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has said she doubts the law’s validity and has accused it of a “conspiracy to strip citizenship rights.” She said, “BJP leaders say that the CAA gives you rights. But the moment you apply for citizenship, you become an illegal migrant and you will lose your rights. You will lose your rights and you will be taken to detention camps. Please think before applying.”
The government has dismissed the allegations.
Home Minister Amit Shah, not calling the CAA “unconstitutional,” accused the opposition of resorting to “politics of lies.” On the question of time, he said, “The BJP had clarified this in its 2019 manifesto.”
He also said that minorities “do not need to fear because there is no provision in the CAA to take back rights.”
What's Your Reaction?
