New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Centre on a batch of applications seeking stay of implementation of Citizen Amendment Rules, 2024, which were notified on March 11, and sought response from it in three weeks, while scheduling the matter for further hearing on April 9.
A battery of senior advocates represented the petitioners before the apex court in 237 petitions listed for hearing. Senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing a petitioner, vehemently argued for stay on grant of citizenship till the hearing on April 9.
Jaising submitted before a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud that a court order should be issued to stop the government from granting citizenship after rules were notified for implementation of Citizenship (Amendment) Act. She said people who would be granted citizenship can vote.
After the end of the hearing, Jaising insisted that at least the court should say all citizenship granted in the meantime would be subject to the court's decision. However, the CJI politely replied that the infrastructure for grant of citizenship is not yet in place. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing a petitioner, also stressed that no citizenship should be granted in the meanwhile because once it is granted then it cannot be taken back. Advocate Nizam Pasha, representing one of the petitioners’, argued that CAA and NRC are linked. However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta vehemently opposed it, saying that only CAA is before the court and not NRC.
During the hearing, petitioners’ counsel made repeated requests to the bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, to stay the process of grant of citizenship to persecuted communities from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh till the SC decides stay application.
Mehta stressed that CAA does not take away citizenship of any person and requested the court grant him four weeks’ time to respond to the applications which have sought a stay on the rules till it disposes of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. Jaising insisted that the matter should be referred to a larger bench.
Sibal and Jaising said earlier when the court issued notice in the matter on January 22, 2020, it did not consider the question of stay as no rules were notified till then.
A counsel said the Assam and North East matters were segregated, citing the January 2020 order, and the issue in Assam matter is different from other matters. “There is an inner line issue, several areas of North East have been kept out of CAA…. “, said the counsel.
Another counsel said see section 6B subsection 4, the entire North East has been kept out of operation of 6B, Arunachal, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, and Meghalaya all are excluded. “In Assam there are three tribal areas. There are about 7 districts, the rest 28 districts only it applies. The reason is that from other neighbouring states people will come to this state of Assam ... .people from other states will come, that is the apprehension once the process starts”, said the counsel, representing tribal organizations from Assam. The bench observed that except 7 districts, the remaining 28 districts are covered by CAA.
Sibal said the problem was that this notification was issued after over 4 years, earlier rules were not notified, since 2020 they have been going to Parliament every three months’ and now, they have issued the notification.
“The problem is if any process of citizenship starts and somebody gets citizenship, it will be impossible to reverse it for several reasons”, said Sibal, adding that these petitions will become infructuous. Sibal pressed that the process should not start, and “once you grant the citizenship you cannot take it back”, and opposed Centre seeking four weeks’ time to file its response. Sibal insisted the stay issue should be dealt with after the vacation in the beginning of April, and questioned the urgency of notifying rules after 4 years. Sibal said, “they said they were not notifying…”. Mehta said, “no. Never”.
Mehta pointed out that 20 applications have filed seeking stay on the rules and there are more applications in the pipeline and they have to be served upon us and replies have to be filed for those. Sibal said need one reply and we will argue. Jaising said Mehta will have to make a statement that no citizenship will be granted in the meanwhile. The bench queried what steps are being taken for the implementation of the rules. “There is a three-tier system. First it goes to one committee, before that there is an application process. Under the rules there is one committee constituted after it goes to the empowered committee. Thereafter, it goes to the central government etc., cannot give a time limit”, said Mehta.
Mehta added that whether people are granted citizenship or not, none of the petitioners will be troubled or prejudiced. Jaising said that is not the issue and the issue is the constitutionality of CAA. Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar said his client has come to India from Balochistan and came here before 2014, as he was being persecuted there. Kumar said his client, who is a Hindu, is granted citizenship, how does it affect anybody else? Jaising said they will get the right to vote.
Pasha, for a party submitted as many as 19 lakh people were kept out of NRC exercise undertaken in Assam and now, except Muslims, all those can file an application for citizenship, which can be processed. Pasha said applications by non-Muslims their applications can begin being processed under CAA. Mehta said an attempt was made outside the court a few years back, misleading people that this is NRC and you are going to be ousted, and, referring to Pasha’s argument, added that NRC is not before the court. Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj, also for a petitioner, cited the instance of farm laws, which were stayed by the court.
The bench declined to consider a plea by the applicants led by a number of counsel to seek a statement from Mehta that they would not grant citizenship till the next date of hearing. "I am not going to make any statement," Mehta said. Sibal and Jaising jointly insisted that the government should not grant citizenship in the meantime.
At the end of the hearing, Jaising said she would want to ask for one clarification that any citizenship granted pursuing these rules will be subject to the outcome of this case. Mehta opposed this contention. Jaising vehemently argued that once citizenship granted cannot be terminated. The CJI politely replied they do not have infrastructure in place, district empowered committee, the central empowered committee, nothing is in place. Sibal said the moment something like this happens, the court should give us liberty to move before it. The bench agreed with Sibal submissions.
Read More
