The Supreme Court on Monday appointed two lawyers as nodal counsel in the batch of cases challenging the validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act [All Assam Students Union vs Union of India].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit and Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi then posted the case for further hearing before an appropriate bench on December 6.
“List the CAA matters before the appropriate court on December 6, 2022,” the Court directed.
Advocates Pallavi Pratap, advocate for petitioner Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) and advocate Kanu Agrawal (Central government counsel) were nominated as nodal counsel to prepare compilation of all relevant documents.
“Having noted that there are various pleas projecting multiple views, resolution of entire controversy can be achieved if two or three matters are taken as lead matters and convenience compilations of all counsels are prepared well in advance. this will make proceedings convenient. Pleadings in IUML is complete and was filed by Adv Pallavi Pratap. We appoint Ms Pratap and Mr Kanu Agrawal as nodal counsel. These counsel are requested to have common compilation of all relevant documents,” the Court directed.
The Court also asked the nodal counsel to share the compilation with all lawyers in digital format.
“All counsel to share written submissions not exceeding three pages. Nodal counsel can designate one or two other matters as lead matters keeping in mind geographical/religious classification,” the Court said.
Specifically on petitions raising issues concerning Assam and Tripura, the Court directed the two States to file their responses within two weeks.
The CAA, which was passed on December 12, 2019, amended Section 2 of the Citizenship Act of 1955 which defines “illegal migrants”.
It added a new proviso to Section 2(1)(b).
As per the same, persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, and who have been exempted by the Central government under the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, or the Foreigners Act, 1946, shall not be treated as “illegal migrant”. Consequently, such persons shall be eligible to apply for citizenship under the 1955 Act.
The CAA specifically excluded the Muslim community from the proviso, triggering protests across the country and a slew of petitions were filed in the Supreme Court.
The petitioners challenging the law have submitted that the CAA discriminates against Muslims on the basis of religion. Such religious segregation is without any reasonable differentiation and violates right to quality under Article 14, it has been contended.
Amid nationwide protests against the legislation, the Supreme Court in January 2020 had issued notice in a batch of over 140 petitions, without staying the Act.
The Court had later hinted that the matter may be heard by a Constitution Bench, but no order was passed to that effect.
In response to the pleas, the Central government said that the CAA is a “benign legislation” which has a narrow purpose and ought not be conflated beyond the legislative intent.
A fresh counter-affidavit was filed on Sunday by the Central government pursuant to an order of Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit-led Bench last month.
In its new affidavit, the Centre said that the CAA does not encourage an influx of foreigners into the country nor illegal migration to Assam as there is a cut-off date of December 31, 2014.
It also underlined that the CAA does not affect the legal, democratic or secular rights of any of the Indian citizens, and existing regime for obtaining visas towards legal migration continues to be permissible from all countries of the world.
The apex court itself has provided wide latitude to the parliament to legislate on subjects concerning foreign policy, citizenship, economic policy etc, the Central government emphasised
