The Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB), now known as the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), initially made its debut in the Lok Sabha in 2016, seeking to amend the Citizenship Act of 1955. After its introduction, it was referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee and their report was finally submitted on January 7, 2019. The Lok Sabha passed the Citizenship Amendment Bill on January 8, 2019, but it lapsed with the dissolution of the 16th Lok Sabha. The Bill was reintroduced to the 17th Lok Sabha on December 9, 2019, by the Minister of Home Affairs, Amit Shah, and was subsequently passed on December 10, 2019. The Rajya Sabha followed suit and passed the bill on December 11, 2019.

The purpose of the CAA was to grant Indian citizenship to illegal immigrants who entered India on or before December 31, 2014. The Act was specifically designed for migrants of six different religions - Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians from three countries - Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. According to the Act, an individual is eligible if they have resided in India during the last 12 months and for 11 of the previous 14 years. The Act relaxed the residency requirement from 11 years to five years for the specified class of illegal migrants.

Download the Daily Current Affairs for UPSC here!

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) is a significant part of the UPSC Syllabus . This article provides comprehensive insights into the Act, and candidates can also download the PDF notes at the end of this article.

The Parliament of India passed the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 (CAA) on 11 December 2019. It amended the Citizenship Act of 1955 by providing an accelerated pathway to Indian citizenship for persecuted refugees of religious minorities from Islamic countries Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who arrived in India by 2014. The eligible minorities were stated as Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, or Christians. The law does not grant such eligibility to Muslims from these Islamic countries. Additionally, the act excludes 58,000 Sri Lankan Tamil refugees who have lived in India since the 1980s. The act was the first time that religion had been overtly used as a criterion for citizenship under Indian law, and it attracted global criticism.

Understanding Citizenship

• Citizenship is a legal status that defines the relationship between the nation and the individuals who make up the nation.
• It grants certain rights to an individual, such as protection by the state, the right to vote, and the right to hold certain public offices, among others, in exchange for the fulfillment of certain duties/obligations owed by the individual to the state.

Citizenship in the Indian Context

• The Constitution of India provides for a single citizenship for the whole of India.
• Under Article 11 of the Indian Constitution, Parliament has the power to regulate the right of citizenship by law. Thus, the parliament passed the Citizenship act of 1955 to provide for the acquisition and determination of Indian Citizenship.
• Entry 17, List 1 under the Seventh Schedule discusses Citizenship, naturalization, and aliens. Thus, Parliament has exclusive power to legislate with respect to citizenship.
• Until 1987 , to be eligible for Indian citizenship, a person simply had to be born in India.
  • However, in response to populist movements alleging massive illegal migrations from Bangladesh, citizenship laws were first amended to additionally require that at least one parent should be Indian.
• In 2004 , the law was further amended to prescribe that not only should one parent be Indian; the other should not be an illegal immigrant.

Learn more about citizenship in India on the provided link.

Defining an Illegal Migrant in India

Under the Act, an illegal migrant is a foreigner who:

• Enters the country without valid travel documents like a passport and visa, or
• Enters with valid documents, but overstays beyond the permitted time period.
• Illegal migrants may be put in jail or deported under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920.

Read about Migration & India in the linked article.

The Scenario Prior to the Passing of the Act

• Prior to the Act, an illegal migrant was not eligible to apply for acquiring citizenship . They were barred from becoming an Indian citizen through registration or naturalization.
  • The Foreigners Act and the Passport Act debarred such individuals and provided for their imprisonment or deportation.
• A person could become an Indian citizen through registration.
  • Section 5 (a) of Citizenship act of 1955 : A person of Indian origin who is ordinarily resident in India for seven years before making an application for registration;
  • And they should have lived in India continuously for 12 months before submitting an application for citizenship.
• Under the Citizenship Act, 1955, one of the requirements for citizenship by naturalization is that the applicant must have resided in India during the last 12 months, as well as for 11 of the previous 14 years.

The Intent of the Act

• The Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 aims to make changes in the Citizenship Act, the Passport Act, and the Foreigners Act if the illegal migrants belong to religious minority communities from three neighbouring countries of Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

Key Features & Exceptions of CAA 2019

Get Free Materials for UPSC Preparation by Testbook!

Citizenship Amendment Act Rules - 2024

Though there has been more than a 4-year delay, the Ministry of Home Affairs has notified the Citizenship Amendment Rules, 2024, which will enable the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019. Key provisions are:

• The process: The rules require eligible refugees to submit applications with affidavits confirming statements, character vouchers from Indian citizens, and a declaration of familiarity with a scheduled Indian language for citizenship.
• E-application to the district-level committee: The rules mandate electronic application submission to a district-level committee for document verification and administration of the oath of allegiance. Failure to appear in person may lead to application rejection by the empowered committee after review by the district committee.
• Supporting documents: Applicants must submit a passport, birth certificate, identity documents, land records, or proof of ancestry from Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Bangladesh to support their citizenship application.
• Verification of entry date: Applicants must provide proof of entry before Dec 31, 2014, through the listed 20 documents like FRRO registration, Census slip, government IDs (Aadhaar, ration card, license), marriage certificate issued in India, etc.
• Digital certificate: Approved applicants will receive a digital citizenship certificate.

Analysis of the Citizenship Amendment Act

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 2019 is an amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955. It grants Indian citizenship to certain non-Muslim immigrants who came to India from neighboring countries due to religious persecution. Let’s understand how this law works and what its broader implications are.

Criticisms of the Act - Accusations of Anti-Muslim Bias

• The Act has been heavily criticized for allegedly targeting Muslims. Critics argue that the religious basis of citizenship not only violates the principles of secularism but also of liberalism, equality, and justice.
  • It fails to allow Shia, Balochi, and Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan and Hazaras in Afghanistan who also face persecution, to apply for citizenship.
  • A key argument by the critics against the CAA is that it will not extend to those persecuted in Myanmar and Sri Lanka, from where Rohingya Muslims and Tamils are staying in the country as refugees.

Alleged Violation of Article 14

• Critics argue that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality.
  • The CAA is in the teeth of Article 14, which not only demands reasonable classification and a rational and just object to be achieved for any classification to be valid but additionally requires every such classification to be non-arbitrary .
  • One of the criticisms is that this Act is an instance of class legislation, as classification on the ground of religion is not permissible.

Opposition from the North East

• In the Northeastern states , the prospect of citizenship for massive numbers of illegal Bangladeshi migrants has triggered deep anxieties, including fears of demographic change , loss of livelihood opportunities, and erosion of the indigenous culture.
• The Act appears to violate the Assam Accord, both in letter and spirit .
  • The Assam Accord, signed between the then Rajiv Gandhi-led central government and the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU), had fixed March 24, 1971, as the cutoff date for foreign immigrants. Those illegally entering Assam after this date were to be detected and deported, irrespective of their religion.
  • The Citizenship Amendment Act moved the cutoff date for six religions to December 31, 2014, something that is not acceptable to the Assamese-speaking people in Brahmaputra Valley, who insist that all illegal immigrants should be treated as illegal.
• There is also an economic problem . If tens of thousands leave Bangladesh and start staying legally in Assam and North East, the pressure will first show in the principal economic resource—land.
  • Also, since these will be legitimate citizens, there will be more people joining the queue of job hopefuls that can potentially lower opportunities for the indigenous and the locals.
• It also boils down to the political rights of the people of the state. Migration has been a burning issue in Assam.
  • There is a view that illegal immigrants, who will eventually become legitimate citizens, will be determining the political future of the state.

Other Controversies Surrounding CAA

• CAA does not consider Jews and atheists. They have been left out of the Act.
• The basis of clubbing Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh together and thereby excluding other (neighbouring) countries is unclear.
  • A common history is not ground as Afghanistan was never a part of British India and was always a separate country.
• Countries such as Nepal, Bhutan, and Myanmar, which share a land border with India, have been excluded .
  • The reason stated in the ‘Statement of Objects and Reasons’ of the Act is that these three countries constitutionally provide for a “state religion”; thus, the Act is to protect “religious minorities” in these theocratic states.
  • The above reasoning fails with respect to Bhutan, which is a neighbour and constitutionally a religious state with the official religion being Vajrayana Buddhism.
    • Non-Buddhist missionary activity is limited, construction of non-Buddhist religious buildings is prohibited and the celebration of some non-Buddhist religious festivals is curtailed. Yet, Bhutan has been excluded from the list.
  • Focus only on religious persecution:
    • On the classification of individuals, the Act provides benefits to sufferers of only one kind of persecution, i.e. religious persecution neglecting others.
    • Religious persecution is a grave problem but political persecution is also equally existent in parts of the world. If the intent is to protect victims of persecution, the logic to restrict it only to religious persecution is suspect.
  • As per critics, the provisions of the CAA will deny equal protection of laws to similarly placed persons who come to India as “illegal migrants” but in fact grant citizenship to the less deserving at the cost of the more deserving.
    • As per critics, the provisions of CAA might lead to a situation where a Rohingya who has saved himself from harm in Myanmar by crossing into India will not be entitled to be considered for citizenship, while a Hindu from Bangladesh, who might be an economic migrant and have not faced any direct persecution in his life, would be entitled to citizenship.
    • Similarly, a Tamil from Jaffna escaping the atrocities in Sri Lanka will continue to be an “illegal migrant” and never be entitled to apply for citizenship by naturalization.
  • There is also a reduction in the residential requirement for naturalization — from 11 years to five. The reasons for the chosen time frame has not been stated.

Support for the Act - It is not Anti-Muslim

• The Ahmediyas and Rohingyas can still seek Indian citizenship through naturalization (if they enter with valid travel documents).
  • In any case, since India follows the principle of non-refoulment (even without acceding to the Refugee Convention 1951), they would not be pushed back.
  • If a Shia Muslim is facing persecution and is in India seeking shelter, his case to continue to reside in India as a refugee shall be considered on its merits and circumstances.
  • With regard to Balochi refugees , Balochistan has long struggled to be independent of Pakistan and including Balochis in the CAA could be perceived as interference in Pakistan’s internal affairs.
  • The CAA, therefore, does not exclude Muslims from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan to apply for Indian citizenship. They can continue to do so in the same way singer Adnan Sami, for example, applied for citizenship.
• It is important to note that even minorities shall not be granted automatic citizenship. They would need to fulfill conditions specified in the Third Schedule to the Citizenship Act, 1955, namely, the good character requirement as well as physical residence in India.
• Harish Salve, one of India’s leading legal experts , has stated that the Citizenship Amendment Act is not anti-Muslim.
  • Salve stated that the countries specified in the CAA have their own state religion and Islamic rules. He added that Islamic majority nations identify their people as per who follows Islam and who does not. Addressing governance problems in neighbouring countries is not the purpose of the CAA.
  • Over the issue of Rohingyas, Salve stated that a law that addresses one evil does not need to address all the evils in all countries. It is notable here that Myanmar, though a Buddhist majority nation, does not have a state religion and Myanmar does not feature in the CAA bill.

The Act is not a Violation of Article 14 - Sovereign Space

• To begin with, the justiciability of citizenship or laws that regulate the entry of foreigners is often treated as a ‘sovereign space’ where the courts are reluctant to intervene.
  • Thus in Trump v Hawaii No. 17-965, 585 U.S. (2018), the US Supreme Court upheld a travel ban from several Muslim countries holding that regulation of foreigners including ingress is “fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.”
  • Indian courts have generally followed similar reasoning. In David John Hopkins vs. Union of India (1997), the Madras High Court held that the right of the Union to refuse citizenship is absolute and not fettered by equal protection under Article 14 .
  • Similarly in Louis De Raedt vs. Union of India (1991), the Supreme Court held that the right of a foreigner in India is confined to Article 21 and he cannot seek citizenship as a matter of right.

With respect to the North East

• The Citizenship Amendment Act does not dilute the sanctity of the Assam Accord as far as the cut-off date of March 24, 1971, stipulated for the detection/deportation of illegal immigrants is concerned.
• The Citizenship Amendment Act is not limited to Assam. It applies to the whole country. The Citizenship Amendment Act is not in contradiction with the National Register of Citizens (NRC), which is being updated to protect indigenous communities from illegal immigrants.
• Further, there is a cut-off date of December 31, 2014, and benefits under the Citizenship Amendment Act will not be available for members of the religious minorities who migrate to India after the cut-off date.

Historical Connections

• The Act does not give a carte blanche to Hindus and Christians and Sikhs from other countries to come to India and get citizenship. Just these three countries. Why?
• Because each of these has been civilizational ties with India. The circumstances in which they were partitioned from India have created a situation where Hindus and other minority populations have been dwindling ever since the partition took place.
• Regarding including other countries in the neighbourhood the argument could be that we can deal with them separately if the need arises as we did in the case of persecuted Sri Lankan Tamils.

Conclusion

The parliament has unfractured powers to make laws for the country when it comes to Citizenship. But the opposition and other political parties allege this Act by the Government violates some of the basic features of the constitution like secularism and equality. It may reach the doors of the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court will be the final interpreter. If it violates the constitutional features and goes ultra-wires it will be struck down, if it is not we will continue to have the law.

But one most important thing is, an equilibrium has to be attained by New Delhi as this involves neighbouring countries too. Any exaggerated attempt to host the migrants should not be at the cost of goodwill earned over the years. India being a land of myriad customs and traditions, the birthplace of religions and the acceptor of faiths and protectors of persecuted in the past should always uphold the principles of Secularism going forward.