The Indian Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently failed to meet its deadline for the notification of rules under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA). This failure has resulted in a cloud of uncertainty and concerns surrounding the CAA, highlighting the need for clear rules and regulations to effectively implement this law. To address these issues, two parliamentary committees, namely the Committee on Subordinate Legislation in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, have stepped in and requested the MHA to draft the regulating guidelines for the CAA.
The Role of the Committee on Subordinate Legislation
The Committee on Subordinate Legislation is an essential body in both houses of the parliament, with a team of 15 members, excluding ministers. This committee delicately scrutinizes and reports to the House on the executive’s exercise of power, ensuring it is within the scope of the Constitution or Parliament’s delegation. This committee’s role has become particularly relevant given instances such as the Benami Transactions Act of 1988, which remained unimplemented due to the absence of regulations.
Key Features of the CAA
The CAA offers citizenship based on religion to six non-Muslim undocumented communities, including Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians, from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, who entered India on or before 31st December, 2014. Alongside providing citizenship, the CAA also exempts these six communities from facing any criminal case under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Passport Act, 1920, which prescribes punishment for illegal entry into the country and overstaying visas and permits.
Concerns Associated with the CAA
A number of valid concerns surround the implementation of the CAA. Critics argue the act targets a particular community, sparking fears that non-Muslims will benefit from the proposed nationwide National Register of Citizens (NRC), while excluded Muslims will have to prove their citizenship.
The CAA also contradicts the Assam Accord of 1985, which mandates the deportation of illegal migrants from Bangladesh after 25 March 1971, disregarding religion. The illegal migration of an estimated 20 million Bangladeshis to Assam has irrevocably changed the state’s demography and strained its resources and economy.
The CAA’s critics also claim that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution, ensuring equality for both citizens and foreigners, and the principle of secularism enshrined in the Constitution’s preamble. It also does not cover other refugees, including Tamils from Sri Lanka and Hindu Rohingya from Myanmar.
Another significant issue is the challenge faced by the government in distinguishing persecuted individuals from illegal migrants. Moreover, focusing on religious oppression in the aforementioned countries could strain India’s bilateral ties with them.
The Way Forward
Given these concerns, it’s crucial for the MHA to present the CAA rules with absolute transparency and address the issues surrounding the Act. As a rich civilization, India has a responsibility to protect the prosecuted in its neighborhood in a manner consistent with the spirit of the Constitution. Clearing the uncertainties associated with the CAA is a critical step in fulfilling this duty.
