The Supreme Court will hear on March 19 a clutch of pleas demanding that the rules for the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, or CAA, be stayed, and that no coercive steps be taken against persons belonging to Muslim community who have been deprived of the benefit of this law. The CAA rules were notified by the Union government on March 11.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud agreed to list the batch of over 200 petitions along with fresh applications on March 19 after senior counsel Kapil Sibal mentioned the matter, pressing for an urgent hearing.

“The petitions have been pending since 2019. Earlier, we did not press for a stay of the law because they (Centre) argued that rules were yet to be framed. Just before the general elections, they announced the rules. Once citizenships are granted, it would be difficult to reverse the process,” Sibal, appearing for the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), submitted.

Read Here | ‘Misplaced and unwarranted concerns’: India rejects US’ criticism of CAA

IUML is one of the petitioners in the court that have challenged the validity of the amendments and Section 6B in the Act which aim at granting fast-track citizenship to non-Muslim refugees who came to India on or before December 31, 2014, because of religious persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. Apart from IUML, Assam Congress leader Debabrata Saikia, Asom Jatiyatabadi Yuba Chatra Parishad (a regional student outfit), Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI) and the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) have also moved separate applications seeking a stay on CAA rules.

Representing the Centre, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said that he has no difficulty if the court hears the case on any suitable day. “I would also like to say that none of the petitioners has the locus to say, ‘don’t grant citizenship’. As far the argument on elections is concerned, I will keep the politics out of the court,” Mehta added.

To this, the CJI said that the bunch of all 237 petitions in the matter can be listed on March 19. “All parties with diverse points… We can hear a few lawyers,” added justice Chandrachud.

IUML on Tuesday, moved its plea contending that CAA rules create a “highly truncated and fast-tracked process” for the grant of citizenships to non-Muslim migrants from the specified countries, thereby making operational a “manifestly arbitrary and discriminatory” regime solely on the ground of religious identity.

Read Here | ‘Will women feel safe if refugees settled near their homes?’: Kejriwal attacks Shah over CAA

“Since CAA discriminates on the basis of religion, it strikes at the root of secularism, which is the basic structure of the Constitution… India’s constitutional framework, read with obligations under the international law, mandates a framework of refugee protection that is non-discriminatory,” stated the plea, filed through advocate Pallavi Pratap.

It pointed out that waiting for the final judgment of the top court would not hamper anyone’s interest as the Centre itself has taken more than four years to notify the rules after the amendments received presidential assent in December 2019.

“If this court finally decided that CAA is unconstitutional, people who would have received citizenship under this Act will have to be stripped of their citizenships. Therefore, it is in the best interest of everyone to defer the implementation of CAA and impugned rules till this hon’ble court finally decides the matter,” IUML pleaded.

The Kerala-based political party urged the court to stay the implementation of CAA and the rules, adding that until the court decides, persons belonging to Muslim community may not be subjected to any coercive action under the Citizenship Act, Passport Act or Foreigners Act. IUML has also approached the registrar concerned to seek an urgent hearing of its plea.

Opinion: The citizenship Act and its discontents

For over a year now, the Supreme Court has not held an effective hearing in this matter.

Four years after the controversial law was passed to fast-track citizenship to non-Muslims who entered India from the three neighbouring countries on or before December 31, 2014, the Centre on Monday notified the rules, entailing the architecture granting citizenship through certificates of registration and naturalisation.

Announcing the notification, which was expected after several ministers and officials over the past few months said that the rules would be released before this summer’s general elections, Union home minister Amit Shah said on X: “The Modi government notified the Citizenship (amendment) rules, 2024. These rules will now enable minorities persecuted on religious grounds in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan to acquire citizenship in our nation… With this notification, PM Shri @narendramodi Ji has delivered on another commitment and realised the promise of the makers of our constitution to the Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians living in those countries.”

The announcement of the rules, in keeping with the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) promise in its 2019 manifesto, was criticised by Opposition parties who said the timing of the notification is linked to the coming elections. The law itself was passed in December 2019, but the underlying rules were not framed. Its passage resulted in protests, which petered out only with the Covid-19 pandemic, and a clutch of petitions that remain before the Supreme Court.

Editorial: Why India must look beyond CAA

A clutch of over two hundred connected petitions, filed in the top court since 2019, have challenged various CAA provisions on grounds of religious discrimination against Muslims and arbitrariness.

The petitioners include Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, the Indian Union Muslim League, and its MPs, Lok Sabha MP and AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi, RJD leader Manoj Jha, TMC MP Mahua Moitra, All Assam Students’ Union and Tripura royal scion Pradyot Kishore Deb Barman.

Responding to these petitions, the Centre’s affidavit in October 2022 stated that the legality of the CAA may not be within the scope of judicial review since matters of citizenship and foreign policy fall squarely within the domain of Parliament. The government asserted that issues concerning the sovereign plenary power of parliament, especially regarding citizenship, cannot be questioned by filing PILs.

According to the affidavit filed through the Union ministry of home affairs, the power of exclusion of immigrants is an incident of sovereignty belonging to a duly constituted nation-state and immigration policy. The policy, it added, impacts the foreign policy of a State and by extension, affects its security apparatus and would fall squarely within parliament’s domain.

The 2022 affidavit also sought to allay the apprehensions that CAA would incentivise influx of illegal migrants, pointing out the migrants who are entitled to citizenship under the law are already living in various parts of India.