The Supreme Court on Monday posted for hearing on December 6 a batch of petitions challenging the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019.
A bench of Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi granted two weeks to Assam and Tripura governments to file their responses on the pleas.
It also appointed two lawyers as nodal counsel in the batch of cases challenging the validity of the Act.
Advocate Pallavi Pratap, advocate for petitioner Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) and advocate Kanu Agrawal, counsel for the Central government, were nominated as nodal counsel to prepare a compilation of all relevant documents.
At least 220 petitions against the CAA were filed before the top court.
CAA was passed by Parliament on December 11, 2019 and it was met with protests all across the country. The CAA came into effect on January 10, 2020.
A Kerala-based political party Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, Congress leader and former union minister Jairam Ramesh, All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen(AIMIM) leader Asaduddin Owaisi, Congress leader Debabrata Saikia, NGOs Rihai Manch and Citizens Against Hate, Assam Advocates Association, and law students among others had filed a plea before the top court challenging the Act.
In 2020, the Kerala government also filed a suit in the apex court becoming the first state to challenge the CAA.
The law fast-tracks the process of granting citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians who fled religious persecution in Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan and took refuge in India on or before December 31, 2014.
The top court had earlier issued notice to the Centre and refused to pass an interim order staying the law without hearing the Centre.
The Centre had filed its affidavit before the apex court saying that the CAA Act is a "benign piece of legislation" which does not affect the "legal, democratic or secular rights" of any of the Indian Citizens.
The CAA does not violate any fundamental right, the Centre had said while terming the legislation legal and asserted that there was no question of it violating constitutional morality.
The petitions contended that the Act, which liberalises and fast-tracks the grant of citizenship to non-Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, promotes religion-based discrimination.
The amendments have also been challenged on several other grounds, including violation of secularism, Articles 21 (right to life), 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth) and 19 (right to freedom), as well as provisions on citizenship and constitutional morality.
The plea filed by Congress leader Jairam Ramesh has said that the Act is a "brazen attack" on core fundamental rights envisaged under the Constitution and treats "equals as unequal".
The 2019 Act amended the Citizenship Act, 1955, which makes illegal migrants eligible for citizenship if they (a) belong to the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian communities, and (b) are from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan. It only applies to migrants who entered India on or before December 31, 2014. As per the amendment, certain areas in the Northeast are exempted from the provision.
( With inputs from ANI )
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor