The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 and legal challenges.
Topic - The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 and legal challenges
Author - chandan sha
Contents -
1. Introduction and History of Indian Citizenship Law
List of Case Laws |
1. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3. |
2. Niranjan E.C. v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 1470 of 2019 (pending). |
3. Assam Public Works v. Union of India, (2018) 8 SCC 635. |
4. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477. |
5. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75. |
6. Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461. |
7. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597. |
List of Abbreviations |
1. CAA Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 |
2. CAB Citizenship Amendment Bill |
3. NRC National Register of Citizens |
4. PIL Public Interest Litigation |
5. SCC Supreme Court Cases |
6. AIR All India Reporter |
7. SC Supreme Court |
8. HC High Court |
9. USC United States Code |
10. ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights |
11. MHA Ministry of Home Affairs |
12. EPW Economic and Political Weekly |
13. JILI Journal of the Indian Law Institute |
14. GG Grundgesetz (German Basic Law) |
15. PDF Portable Document Format |
16. NPR National Population Register |
I. INTRODUCTION (Synopsis)
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) amended the Citizenship Act, 1955, to grant Indian citizenship to religious minorities (Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians) from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who entered India on or before 31st December 2014, exempting them from being considered illegal migrants. The Act excludes Muslims from this provision, leading to serious debates about secularism and equality before the law.
The law has sparked nationwide protests and over 200 legal challenges pending before the Supreme Court. Critics argue that the Act violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee equality and non-discrimination. Proponents defend it as a humanitarian step toward protecting persecuted minorities.
This paper examines the evolution of Indian citizenship law, explores the key provisions and legal implications of the 2019 amendment, and analyses the constitutional challenges it has triggered.
1.1 Evolution of the Problem
Citizenship laws in India have historically evolved through constitutional provisions, judicial interpretations, and legislative amendments. The Citizenship Act of 1955 laid down the law relating to acquisition and termination of Indian citizenship. Over the years, political and humanitarian concerns—especially regarding illegal migration from neighbouring countries—have prompted amendments.
The issue of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh became prominent after the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. This led to the Assam Accord (1985), and the addition of Section 6A to the Citizenship Act.[1] However, even with these adjustments, distinguishing refugees from illegal immigrants remained a challenge.
The CAA 2019 marks a significant shift by using religion as a criterion for granting citizenship. For the first time, it introduces a religiously selective approach to refugee protection. By excluding Muslims from its ambit, the amendment has sparked controversy and unrest across India.[2]
The government’s position is that the Act only applies to persecuted religious minorities from Muslim-majority neighbours, not Indian Muslims. However, critics argue that the law violates the secular ethos of the Constitution. Legal scholars also fear that it may set a dangerous precedent of legal discrimination on religious grounds.
This legal and political tension is further intensified by the proposed nationwide National Register of Citizens (NRC), which, when combined with the CAA, raises concerns of statelessness among Muslim communities.[3]
The evolution of the problem thus lies at the intersection of refugee protection, constitutional morality, religious freedom, and national security—creating a complex challenge for lawmakers and the judiciary alike.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
The CAA 2019 has become a legal and constitutional flashpoint. While it aims to provide citizenship to persecuted religious minorities from three neighbouring countries, its selective exclusion of Muslims has raised several constitutional concerns. At the heart of the problem lies the question: Can religion be a valid basis for granting citizenship in a secular state?
The problem is twofold—first, the classification introduced by the Act may violate the principle of equality under Article 14. Second, the exclusion of Muslim refugees, including groups like Ahmadiyyas and Rohingyas, raises concerns under the anti-discrimination clause in Article 15. Additionally, the Act's interaction with a proposed nationwide NRC fuels fears of large-scale disenfranchisement.
More than 30 petitions before the Supreme Court challenge the constitutionality of the Act. Human rights bodies and international organizations have expressed concern over its legality and implications for religious freedom. Yet, the law has not been stayed, and its implementation is in progress, particularly in Assam and other northeastern states.
Thus, the core issue is the legal compatibility of CAA with the secular and inclusive values enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
1.3 Hypothesis
The research hypothesizes that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 violates the fundamental right to equality and undermines India’s secular structure by introducing religion as a criterion for citizenship. It assumes that the exclusion of Muslims from the purview of the Act creates an unreasonable classification and may fail to meet the test of Article 14 of the Constitution.
1.4 Research Questions
1. Does the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution?
2. Is the exclusion of Muslims from the CAA legally justifiable?
3. How does the CAA affect India’s secular constitutional framework?
4. What are the key legal arguments in the Supreme Court petitions challenging the CAA?
1.5 Objectives of the Study
1. To examine the constitutional validity of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.
2. To evaluate the Act’s compliance with the right to equality and secularism.
3. To analyse judicial trends and pending challenges in Indian courts.
4. To explore the socio-legal implications of combining CAA with NRC.
1.6 Significance of the Study
This study is significant because it explores the first instance in Indian legal history where religion has been explicitly used as a basis for granting citizenship. It aims to contribute to the ongoing academic, legal, and policy debates on secularism, equality, and refugee protection. The findings may assist scholars, judges, and lawmakers in interpreting the constitutionality of such legislative measures.
1.7 Scope of the Study
The study is limited to a legal and constitutional analysis of the CAA 2019. It examines the Act's compatibility with Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution and considers its broader impact when read alongside the NRC proposal. The study focuses on Indian legal responses and excludes international refugee frameworks.
1.8 Limitations of the Study
This research is limited by the non-availability of a final Supreme Court verdict on the constitutional validity of the Act. Further, empirical data on the law’s implementation is scarce due to its recent nature. The study also does not cover geopolitical consequences with neighbouring countries in detail.
1.9 Research Methodology
The study adopts both doctrinal and empirical research methods. Doctrinal analysis includes the study of constitutional provisions, Supreme Court judgments, parliamentary debates, and scholarly commentaries. Empirical data is drawn from newspaper reports, interviews, and protest documentation to understand the socio-political impact of the Act.
1.10 Citation Style Adopted
The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation, 21st Edition, is adopted for referencing statutes, case laws, books, and articles throughout this research.
1.11 Literature Review
Granville Austin, in The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, emphasizes the secular nature of India’s constitutional framework. His work is a foundational reference in understanding the intent of the framers and their emphasis on equality[4].
Prof. Faizan Mustafa’s articles in The Wire and Indian Express critique the CAA’s constitutionality, highlighting its departure from universal principles of equality[5].
Abhinav Chandrachud in Republic of Rhetoric explores the philosophical underpinnings of equality and secularism, which are challenged by the CAA’s exclusionary character[6].
The PRS Legislative Research report provides a neutral summary of the Act, its rationale, and criticisms[7]. The Supreme Court Observer tracks the progress of the case and legal submissions, offering insight into judicial trends and arguments[8].
1.12 Proposed Chapterization
Chapter I – Introduction and History of Indian Citizenship Law
Chapter II – The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019
Chapter III – Legal Challenges and Case Law
Chapter IV – Conclusion and Suggestions
Bibliography
Chapter I:
Introduction and History of Indian Citizenship Law
1.1 Origin of Citizenship under the Constitution of India
The Indian Constitution, which came into effect on 26th January 1950, lays the foundation for Indian citizenship in Articles 5 to 11 under Part II. These provisions specify who was deemed to be a citizen of India at the commencement of the Constitution. Unlike many other constitutions, India’s does not provide a permanent or exhaustive definition of citizenship but delegates the power to legislate on it to Parliament.
Article 5 states that every person domiciled in India and born in India, or whose parents were born in India, or who has been ordinarily resident for not less than five years immediately preceding the Constitution's commencement, shall be an Indian citizen.
Article 6 addresses persons who migrated from Pakistan to India, allowing certain categories of such migrants to acquire Indian citizenship.
Article 7 deals with migrants who returned to Pakistan after March 1, 1947, but later returned to India under a permit for resettlement.
Article 8 provides for the citizenship of Indians residing abroad.
Article 9 disqualifies those who voluntarily acquire the citizenship of another country.
Article 10 allows Parliament to regulate citizenship law.
Article 11 empowers Parliament to make laws regarding acquisition, termination, and other matters relating to citizenship.
Thus, the Constitution laid down a limited and transitional citizenship scheme, delegating future regulatory powers to the legislature[9].
1.2 The Citizenship Act, 1955 and Its Amendments
The Citizenship Act, 1955 was enacted by Parliament using its powers under Article 11 of the Constitution. This Act became the principal legislation governing the acquisition, termination, and renunciation of Indian citizenship.
The Act originally provided for five methods of acquiring citizenship:
1. By birth (Section 3)
2. By descent (Section 4)
3. By registration (Section 5)
4. By naturalisation (Section 6)
5. By incorporation of territory (Section 7)
Over time, several amendments were made to respond to migration patterns, national security concerns, and political considerations. The significant amendments are:
1986 Amendment: Restricted citizenship by birth to those born in India with at least one Indian parent. This change was influenced by large-scale migration, particularly in Assam[10].
1992 Amendment: Allowed citizenship by descent even if only one parent is an Indian citizen.
2003 Amendment: Introduced the concept of the National Register of Indian Citizens (NRIC) and Overseas Citizens of India (OCI). The amendment also tightened provisions by requiring that one parent must not be an illegal migrant for a person to qualify as a citizen by birth[11].
2005 and 2015 Amendments: Focused on expanding the OCI and Persons of Indian Origin (PIO) schemes.
2019 Amendment: Granted citizenship to non-Muslim religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who entered India before 31st December 2014, thereby introducing a religion-based classification for the first time[12].
These changes illustrate a shift in India’s citizenship jurisprudence from an inclusive, secular approach to one shaped by demographic and political concerns.
1.3 Assam Accord and Section 6A
The Assam Accord, signed in 1985 between the Government of India and the AllAssam Students’ Union (AASU), was a political agreement meant to end a six-year-long agitation against illegal immigration from Bangladesh. According to the accord, migrants who entered Assam after 24th March 1971 were to be detected and deported, while those who came before that date were to be granted citizenship.
To give effect to this, Section 6A was inserted into the Citizenship Act, 1955 by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985. Section 6A provides that:
Persons of Indian origin who came to Assam from Bangladesh before 1 January 1966 shall be deemed citizens.
Those who came between 1 January 1966 and 24 March 1971 would be registered as citizens after a 10-year waiting period during which they would not be entitled to vote[13].
Section 6A has been challenged in the Supreme Court on the grounds that it violates the right to equality (Article 14) by creating a different cut-off date for Assam than for the rest of India. The matter is still pending before a Constitution Bench in the case of In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955[14].
The Assam experience played a crucial role in shaping the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and also influenced the 2019 amendment. The NRC exercise in Assam excluded 1.9 million people, and many fear that the CAA-NRC combination may disproportionately affect Muslim populations.
Conclusion
The history of Indian citizenship law reflects a dynamic interplay of constitutional values, national identity, and demographic realities. From the Constitution’s secular and inclusive foundation to the current controversies over the 2019 amendment, citizenship remains a contested legal and political category in India. While earlier laws focused on integrating migrants and regulating nationality neutrally, recent shifts have introduced religious qualifications that challenge the foundational principles of equality and secularism. As judicial scrutiny continues, especially with the challenge to Section 6A and the CAA 2019, the future direction of Indian citizenship law hangs in balance.
Chapter II:
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019
2.1 Key Provisions of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) is a landmark piece of legislation that amends the Citizenship Act, 1955. It specifically provides a pathway to Indian citizenship for religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who entered India before 31st December 2014. The key provisions of the Act are:
1. Section 2 of the Act amends Section 2 of the original Citizenship Act, 1955, to relax the naturalization process for individuals belonging to specific religious groups – Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. These groups are given an exemption from the normal 12-year residency requirement for naturalization.
2. Section 6B (added by the amendment) provides that such individuals, who came to India on or before 31st December 2014, shall not be treated as illegal immigrants under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920.
3. Exclusion of Muslims: A significant aspect of the amendment is the exclusion of Muslims from the provisions of the CAA. The Act explicitly omits Muslims from the religious minorities granted citizenship despite facing persecution in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan.
4. Section 7 grants powers to the Central Government to amend the rules and regulations under the Citizenship Act to accommodate the provisions of the CAA, ensuring that the mechanism for granting citizenship is streamlined for these religious minorities.
These provisions form the core of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, signaling a shift towards a religion-based classification in the citizenship process.
2.2 Legislative Intent and Parliamentary Debates
The legislative intent behind the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, is grounded in the government’s position that the three countries – Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan – are Islamic states where religious minorities face significant persecution. The government argues that the Hindus, Sikhs, and other religious minorities in these countries are forced to flee to India due to their religious identities and should thus be granted a route to citizenship as an act of humanitarian assistance.
During the Parliamentary debates, the Home Minister, Amit Shah, emphasized that the CAA was designed to offer protection to these minorities who have faced religious persecution for decades in these neighboring countries. Shah stated that the Act was “not against Muslims but for minorities facing persecution”[15]. He further clarified that the Act was intended to be a one-time exception for the relief of minorities fleeing religious persecution. The government reiterated that it would not affect Indian Muslims, who have full rights as citizens of India under the Constitution.
Critics of the CAA, including various opposition parties, however, raised concerns about its discriminatory nature, particularly the religious classification. They argued that the Act violates the secular principles embedded in the Indian Constitution, particularly Article 14 (equality before the law).[16] They pointed out that the exclusion of Muslims from this provision was unjustifiable and went against the principles of non-discrimination and inclusivity.
The Act also sparked widespread protests across India, particularly in the northeastern states like Assam and Tripura, where there were fears that the CAA would lead to a rise in migration from neighboring countries, further altering the demographic balance.
The Parliament passed the CAA on December 11, 2019, in the Lok Sabha by a majority vote, and the Rajya Sabha followed suit on December 12, 2019. Despite the government’s defence of the Act, the law has been heavily contested, with petitions filed in the Supreme Court of India challenging its constitutionality.
2.3 Analysis of Classifications Made
One of the most contentious aspects of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 is the classification made between religious minorities and the exclusion of Muslims from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. This classification has raised several constitutional concerns.
Religion-based Classification
The Act differentiates between Muslims and non-Muslims based on religion, a decision that goes against the secular framework of the Indian Constitution. The framers of the Constitution ensured that the country would be a secular republic, where religion would not form the basis of discrimination. The inclusion of religion as a criterion for granting citizenship appears to contradict this principle and raises concerns about Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution, which guarantees that the state shall not deny any person equal protection of the laws.
The inclusion of specific religious minorities such as Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians, but the exclusion of Muslims, has been critiqued for being arbitrary. Several experts argue that religious persecution, which the government cites as a justification, affects Muslims in these countries as well. For example, the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan, who are Muslim by faith, faces severe discrimination and persecution but are not eligible under the provisions of the CAA.
Legal Challenges
The exclusion of Muslims from the provisions of the CAA has been challenged in multiple cases before the Supreme Court of India. Petitioners argue that the Act violates Article 14 by making an unreasonable distinction between religions. The court is currently deliberating on these petitions, with multiple cases pending before a Constitution Bench.
Assam Accord and NRC
In states like Assam, where the Assam Accord (1985) was signed to address the issue of illegal immigration, the CAA faces strong opposition, as it provides an expedited path to citizenship for migrants who arrived before 31st December 2014, which goes against the spirit of the Accord. Critics fear that the CAA, when implemented in conjunction with the National Register of Citizens (NRC), could lead to the disenfranchisement of a large section of Indian Muslims who may be excluded from the NRC but will not be able to benefit from the CAA provisions[17].
2.4 Conclusion
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 represents a significant shift in India's approach to citizenship, focusing on religious persecution as a primary criterion for granting citizenship. While the Act aims to protect religious minorities from neighboring countries, its exclusion of Muslims raises questions about the constitutionality of a religion-based classification. The Act has sparked intense debates and protests, highlighting the tension between secularism and religion-based distinctions in Indian law. As challenges to its legality continue, the final outcome will shape the future of Indian citizenship law and its commitment to equality for all its citizens.
Chapter III:
Legal Challenges and Case Law
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) has ignited widespread legal and constitutional scrutiny, particularly with regard to Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws. Legal experts, civil society groups, and citizens have challenged the Act in the Supreme Court of India, alleging that it violates the secular and democratic fabric of the Constitution.
3.1 Article 14 and the Doctrine of Equality
Article 14 of the Constitution of India states:
“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”[18]
The jurisprudence surrounding Article 14, particularly in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu,[19] establishes that equality is antithetical to arbitrariness and any classification must meet two tests: (i) it must be based on an intelligible differentia, and (ii) the differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
Critics argue that the CAA violates this standard by excluding Muslims from the category of persecuted minorities eligible for citizenship from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. The classification, they argue, is not based on reasonable criteria but on religion, which is constitutionally impermissible. Furthermore, Ahmadiyyas in Pakistan, Hazaras in Afghanistan, and Rohingyas in Myanmar – all Muslim minorities facing severe persecution – are excluded from the Act’s purview, raising questions about its consistency and fairness.
3.2 Pending PILs Before the Supreme Court
Over 200 writ petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the CAA.[20] The lead case, Niranjan E.C. v. Union of India, forms the foundation of the legal challenge. Petitioners argue that the religion-based exclusion violates Articles 14, 21, and 25 of the Constitution. The Bench, currently led by the Chief Justice of India, has decided to hear the matter as part of a Constitution Bench.[21]
Petitioners have further submitted that the Act breaches India’s international obligations, particularly under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Refugee Convention, 1951, which, although India has not signed, are reflective of customary international law.
In Niranjan E.C., the Court issued notices to the Union Government and has listed the matter for final hearing, although no interim stay has been granted as of now.[22] The outcome of this case could significantly shape the contours of Indian constitutional law, particularly the evolving scope of substantive equality.
3.3 Assam NRC Judgments and Their Intersection with CAA
The implementation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, following the directives in Assam Public Works v. Union of India,[23] identified over 19 lakh individuals as illegal immigrants. The CAA intersects with this framework by offering citizenship protection to non-Muslim individuals excluded from the NRC, while leaving Muslim individuals vulnerable to statelessness.
This has led to a dual-track system, which is argued to be discriminatory. Legal scholars have warned that such a mechanism could lead to violations of the right to life and dignity under Article 21, especially for those excluded from both NRC and CAA protection.[24]
3.4 Comparative Legal Analysis with Other Nations
Comparatively, most liberal democracies use non-discriminatory frameworks for asylum and citizenship. For example:
In the United States, the Refugee Act of 1980 allows persons facing persecution on race, religion, nationality, or political opinion to apply for asylum, regardless of religion.[25]
Germany’s asylum law under Article 16a of the Basic Law also prohibits discrimination based on religion.[26]
The CAA, in contrast, employs religion as an explicit criterion, raising questions about India’s compliance with global democratic norms and its historical tradition of secularism, enshrined in its constitutional identity.
3.5 Conclusion
The CAA’s constitutionality is under serious legal and moral scrutiny. The Supreme Court’s final verdict, particularly in Niranjan E.C., will determine whether religion can be a permissible basis for selective inclusion in the citizenship framework. The case also reaffirms the importance of Article 14, as a living principle that evolves with India’s constitutional morality. The NRC-CAA overlap in Assam raises profound concerns over statelessness and equal protection. Comparative analysis underscores the exceptionalism of CAA and its departure from global human rights standards, making this legal battle a defining moment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
Chapter IV:
Conclusion and Suggestions
Conclusion
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 marks a significant shift in India’s approach to citizenship by introducing religion as a criterion for fast-tracked naturalization. While intended to protect persecuted minorities, the Act raises pressing concerns regarding secularism, equality, and constitutional morality under Articles 14 and 21. The exclusion of Muslim minorities and its intersection with NRC poses risks of discrimination and statelessness. As constitutional scrutiny continues, the CAA tests the strength of India’s democratic institutions and commitment to pluralism. The Supreme Court's judgment will play a pivotal role in shaping India's legal and moral future.
Suggestions
1. Inclusive Amendment: The Act should be amended to include all persecuted minorities irrespective of religion.
2. Statutory Safeguards: Clear procedures for NRC should be legislated with judicial oversight.
3. Refugee Law Framework: India should adopt a dedicated Refugee Law aligned with international standards.
4. Independent Review Panel: Establish a tribunal to review citizenship applications based on humanitarian grounds.
5. Awareness Campaigns: Promote public legal awareness to counter misinformation regarding CAA/NRC/CAA-NPR.
6. Judicial Review: Expedite the pending litigation before the Constitution Bench to ensure timely adjudication.
Bibliography
Books
Basu, Durga Das. Commentary on the Constitution of India. 9th ed., LexisNexis, 2020.
Seervai, H.M. Constitutional Law of India. 4th ed., Universal Law Publishing, 2011.
Jain, M.P. Indian Constitutional Law. 8th ed., LexisNexis, 2018.
Articles
Faizan Mustafa, "CAA and the Constitution," Indian Express, Dec. 17, 2019.
Gautam Bhatia, "The Citizenship Amendment Bill and the Constitution," Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy, Dec. 10, 2019.
Journals
Anupama Roy, “Citizenship and its Discontents,” (2020) 55(4) Economic and Political Weekly 45.
Ujjwal Kumar Singh, “Citizenship, Constitutionalism, and the CAA,” (2020) 43(1) JILI 1.
Links / Websites
The Gazette of India – Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019
PRS Legislative Research - CAA 2019 Summary
The Hindu – Legal challenges to CAA
PDFs
Constitution of India (Govt. of India PDF Version): https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/COI_1.pdf
CAA 2019 Gazette PDF: https://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/214646.pdf
Status / Act
Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, No. 47 of 2019, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Sec. 1, 12 Dec. 2019.
Reports
Ministry of Home Affairs, “Annual Report 2020–21,” Government of India.
“Report of the Parliamentary Committee on the Citizenship Amendment Bill,” Rajya Sabha Secretariat, 2016.
Dictionary
Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th ed., Bryan A. Garner, Thomson Reuters, 2019.
[1] Citizenship Act, No. 57 of 1955, §6A, India Code (1955).
[2] PRS Legislative Research, The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 (Dec. 2019), https://prsindia.org/billtrack/citizenship-amendment-bill-2019.
[3] Supreme Court Observer, Citizenship Amendment Act Case Tracker (2024), https://www.scobserver.in/cases/niranjan-ec-v-union-of-india-caa-case-tracker/.
[4] Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, Oxford University Press (1966).
[5] Faizan Mustafa, Is the CAA Unconstitutional?, The Wire (Dec. 2019), https://thewire.in/law/faizan-mustafa-caa.
[6] Abhinav Chandrachud, Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India, Penguin (2017).
[7] PRS India, supra note 2.
[8] Supreme Court Observer, supra note 3.
[9] India Const. art. 5–11.
[10] Citizenship (Amendment) Act, No. 65 of 1986, § 2, India Code (1986).
[11] Citizenship (Amendment) Act, No. 6 of 2004, § 3, India Code (2004); See also National Register of Citizens in Assam: Legal Provisions, PRS Legislative Research (July 2020), https://prsindia.org/policy/vital-stats/national-register-of-citizens-assam.
[12] Citizenship (Amendment) Act, No. 47 of 2019, § 2, India Code (2019).
[13] Citizenship (Amendment) Act, No. 65 of 1985, § 6A, India Code (1985).
[14] In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, W.P. (C) No. 562 of 2012 (pending before Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court).
[15] Amit Shah, Speech in Lok Sabha on Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019, Lok Sabha Debates, Parliament of India (Dec. 9, 2019).
[16] Constitution of India, art. 14.
[17] Assam Accord and Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019: An Analysis, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. 55, No. 51, 2019, https://www.epw.in/journal/2019/51/assam-accord-and-citizenship-amendment-act-2019.html.
[18] INDIA CONST. art. 14.
[19] E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3 (India).
[20] Krishnadas Rajagopal, Over 200 Petitions Filed in Supreme Court Against CAA, The Hindu (Jan. 2020), https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/caa-legal-challenges-in-supreme-court/article30588447.ece.
[21] Niranjan E.C. v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 1470 of 2019 (pending).
[22] Dhananjay Mahapatra, SC to Hear CAA Case in Constitution Bench, Times of India (Mar. 2020), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sc-agrees-to-hear-pleas-on-caa/articleshow/74578166.cms.
[23]Assam Public Works v. Union of India, (2018) 8 SCC 635 (India).
[24] Faizan Mustafa, CAA and the Constitution, Indian Express (Dec. 2019), https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/citizenship-amendment-bill-article-14-constitution-faizan-mustafa-6164220
[25] Refugee Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-212, 94 Stat. 102 (U.S.).
[26] GRUNDGESETZ [GG] [Basic Law], art. 16a (Ger.).
🔖 About Study on Law Hills
By Chandan Sha
One-stop blog for law notes, moot memorials & legal updates
Study on Law Hills is a legal blog that simplifies Indian law for students and professionals. From Constitution to Criminal Law, it offers:
- 📚 Law notes for exams
- ⚖️ Moot court memorials (Petitioner & Respondent)
- 🧾 Case commentaries & updates
- 📲 Legal reels & lectures via Instagram & YouTube
🔗 Blog: studyonlawhills.blogspot.com
📸 Instagram: @slawh2023
📧 Email: csstarmoon1000@gmail.com
🔗 LinkedIn: Chandan Sha
Comments
Post a Comment