The Apex Court agreed to review the entire process and the possibility of the so-called CAA rules being stayed just ahead of the Parliamentary Elections date. The court pronounces its decision in line with the government’s reluctance to respond to the plaintiff’s suit, which seeks to know why fast-tracked citizenship was granted to some non-Muslim refugees from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and other Muslim countries while the case is ongoing.
As the hearing went on, the Centre’s Solicitor General, Mr Tushar Mehta, spoke in favour of the ordinance but rejected the request for assurance when asked for a statement. The Bench headed by D.Y. Chandrachud, the Chief Justice of India, was to tackle the 237 petitioners’ concerns, the petitioners who surrendered the government’s intention to perform some actions pending the finalization of the CAA Bill.
Hearing the petitioners’ grievances, Chief Justice Chandrachud admitted that the government did not have the resources to implement such a wide-ranging implementation. Still, the two senior advocates, Kapil Sibal and Indira Jaising, pointed out the distrusting point and warned the court to take care and not resort solely to belief in government.
The judges were requested to permit the applicants to call upon them if the government would ever proceed with the citizenship registration under the AAA. Mr Sibal contested to the court that if such an important issue could be stalled for almost five years to notify the rules of the CAA, it could be safely delayed until July 2024. He noted that freedom of life choices was undermined by an inordinately fast pace of citizenship based rather on religious expression instead of the US Constitution’s non-discrimination and equality norms.
Responding to this, the Additional Solicitor General, Mr Mehta, sought an extra four weeks, available from today, for concluding the special leave petitions seeking a stay on the CAA itself. Justice Rithvik asserted that the said law did not discriminate against the petitioners and clarified that the main goal of the CAA was to grant citizenship only to those migrants who illegally entered India on or before December 31, 2014.
The Supreme Court has been keeping vigilance and will certainly provide its judgment on the matter of the larger Bench for the case. Discussions addressed the CAA regulatory structure as it is and the possible implications for those who were left out of the NRC. The apprehension was that this classification might be used to refer to this group, while Muslims out of the NRC might be served with executive action.
Throughout the proceedings, the court ventured into the existing effect on the demography of Assam by the CAA and its rules, as well as the controversies on the overlap between the cut–off dates specified in the CAA and the Citizenship Act 1955.
In this case, the outcome of the motion has meant the disputes over CAA continuity remain, and the court has created the grounds for a deep examination of its legal validity and possible aftermath.
