Amidst the uproar against the enforcement of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)-2019 in Assam, a prominent figure of the Congress party, Debabrata Saikia, has taken legal action by approaching the Supreme Court.
The regulations pertaining to the CAA, enacted by the BJP government in 2019, which grant citizenship to non-Muslim migrants, were officially announced by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs on March 11. This development sparked widespread protests across the state.
Debabrata Saikia, serving as the Leader of Opposition in the Assam Assembly, lodged an interlocutory petition (IA) in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, contesting the regulations put forth by the Ministry of Home Affairs for the implementation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.
In his petition submitted to the apex court, Debabrata Saikia also contested the original legislation ratified by the Parliament on December 12, 2019, namely the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.
The recent guidelines issued under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 confer Indian citizenship upon non-Muslim migrants who entered India from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan as minority refugees up to December 31, 2014.
Saikia’s plea before the highest court of the land argued that the regulations establish a classification based on religion and country, failing the test of manifest arbitrariness as established in the Shayara Bano vs Union of India (2017) 9 SCO 1 case. The petitioner asserted that such classification lacks fairness, reasonableness, transparency, and is marked by bias, favoritism, and nepotism, thus not aligning with the principles of healthy competition and equitable treatment.
“The customary presumption of constitutionality attributed to a statute is inapplicable in this scenario. The regulations contravene Article 14 of the Constitution, guaranteeing equality to all individuals, regardless of citizenship status. Discriminating between individuals based on religious affiliation, especially concerning matters of citizenship, constitutes a violation of the Constitution,” stated Debabrata Saikia in his petition.
Additionally, the Congress leader raised concerns regarding the plight of Tamils persecuted in Sri Lanka. Saikia argued that the contentious act and its regulations lack a definitive principle and are therefore inherently arbitrary.
The petition contended that the impugned Act and Rules lack a foundational principle, rendering them manifestly arbitrary. “The objective of the Act posits that the three designated countries espouse a particular state religion. Consequently, individuals belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian communities have endured religious persecution in those nations. However, Sri Lanka similarly upholds a state religion. The classification may appear to focus on persecuted religious minorities. Yet, by this rationale, Sri Lankan Eelam Tamils must also be included, as they face persecution based on Hinduism and ethnicity,” asserted the petition.
Moreover, Saikia argued in his petition to the Supreme Court that the Act violates the Assam Accord of 1985 by granting citizenship to non-Muslim undocumented immigrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who arrived in India before December 31, 2014. The senior Congress leader further informed the apex court that confining the issue to religion amounts to an assault on Assam’s ethnic diversity and socio-economic structure.