The recent news reports that Kerala has pioneered in becoming the first Indian state to challenge the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) at the Supreme Court. The CAA aims to confer citizenship on illegal migrants from Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Parsi, and Christian faiths who arrived in India on or before December 31, 2014, from neighbouring countries of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
Kerala’s Stance on the Issue
Kerala filed the suit under Article 131 of the Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court “original” jurisdiction in disputes between States and the Centre or among States. As per Kerala’s statement, compliance with the CAA, under Article 256, appears arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, and violates fundamental rights. The state thus argues that there is a dispute with the Central Government regarding the enforcement of legal, fundamental, constitutional rights for the State and the inhabitants of Kerala.
Demand for Unconstitutionality
Identifying the law as unconstitutional and in violation of Article 14 (equality before the law), Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty), and Article 25 (freedom of conscience, free profession, practice, and propagation of religion), Kerala demands for the CAA to be declared so. The state also seeks directions to declare the Passport (Entry into India) Amendment Rules, 2015, and Foreigners (Amendment) Order, 2015, ultra vires the Constitution of India and therefore void.
Violation of International Obligations
Additionally, Kerala asserts in its petition that these amendments violate India’s international obligations under three Articles:
| Article | Description |
|---|---|
| 14 Universal Declaration of Human Rights | Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution in other countries. |
| 15 Universal Declaration of Human Rights | Every individual has the right to a nationality and shall not be arbitrarily deprived of it or denied the right to change it. |
| 26 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights | All persons are equal before the law, they are entitled to equal protection of the law without any discrimination, and the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee equal and effective protection against discrimination. |
Article 131 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s Original Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court holds original jurisdiction over disputes: between the Central Government and one or more States; between the Central Government and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other, and between two or more States. The nature of the dispute should be concerning the existence or extent of a legal right dependent on a question of law or fact.
Differences from Article 32 and High Court’s Authority
Unlike the original jurisdiction under Article 32 (which empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs), the jurisdiction under Article 131 is exclusive, meaning only the Supreme Court has this authority. However, High Courts have the power to issue writs under Article 226.
Conflicting Judgments on Article 131
Regarding whether a state can file an original suit under Article 131 to challenge the constitutionality of a Central law, there exist two conflicting judgments made by the Supreme Court. The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Union of India verdict from 2012 held that states cannot challenge a central law under Article 131, whereas the State of Jharkhand Vs State of Bihar verdict from 2015 took the opposite viewpoint. As of now, the question has been referred to a larger Supreme Court bench for final determination, and Kerala’s plaint is based on the 2015 ruling.