New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday scheduled, for December 6, the hearing on over 200 petitions challenging the validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019.
A bench of Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi said: “List the matters before the appropriate bench on December 6, 2022.”
The bench granted time to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to file response on behalf of Tripura and Assam in the matter. It also nominated two advocates Pallavi Pratap, representing one of the petitioners, and Kanu Agrawal, representing the Centre, to make a common compilation of documents to facilitate smooth hearing in the matters arising out of more than 230 petitions.
A battery of senior advocates A.M. Singhvi, Sidharth Luthra, Kapil Sibal, P. Wilson and Indira Jaising and others appeared on behalf of the petitioners. The top court said all counsel should share written submissions not exceeding three pages.
“Nodal counsel can designate one or two other matters as lead matters,” it added.
In its written response, the Centre has defended the validity of the 2019 Act, saying “CAA is a benign piece of legislation which seeks to provide a relaxation, in the nature of an amnesty, to specific communities from the specified countries with a clear cut-off date”.
“It is submitted that the CAA is a specific amendment which seeks to tackle a specific problem prevalent in the specified countries i.e. persecution on the ground of religion in light of the undisputable theocratic constitutional position in the specified countries, the systematic functioning of such States and the perception of fear that may be prevalent amongst minorities as per the de facto situation in the said countries,” it said.
The MHA said Parliament is competent to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India as provided in Article 245 (1) of the Constitution of India.
It further added the CAA facilitates grant of citizenship to migrants belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan who entered India on or before December 31, 2014.
The MHA said: “The CAA does not impinge upon any existing right that may have existed prior to the enactment of the amendment and further, in no manner whatsoever, seeks to affect the legal, democratic or secular rights of any of the Indian citizens. It is submitted that the existing regime for obtaining citizenship of India by foreigners of any country is untouched by the CAA and remains the same.”
In context of pleas claiming the Act violates the Assam Accord, the affidavit said: “It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that specific concerns with regard to Assam and the other northeastern States have been taken into consideration by the legislature while enacting the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 and the provisions in the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 do not in any way violate the provisions of the Assam Accord or section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.”
It further added that the law applied to those who have been exempted by the central government under the provisions of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and other relevant provisions and the rules made under the Foreigners Act, 1946.
The affidavit said that this is a focused law that has a specific cut-off date of December 31, 2014. “Therefore, only such migrants belonging to the six specified communities from the three countries who had entered into India on or before December 31, 2014 will be covered by the provisions of this Amendment Act,” it added.
It further added that migrants already living in India and the amended law does not have any provision which provides for the grant of citizenship to such migrants who would have come after the specified date or on any future date.
The affidavit said CAA does not in any way encourage illegal migration into Assam and therefore the pleas claiming that it has the potential to encourage illegal migration into Assam is unfounded.
The apex court had issued notice to the Centre and had sought its response in January 2020.
.Something may happen in next Parliament session, AG to SC on pleas against sedition law
Attorney General R. Venkataramani on Monday told the Supreme Court that the Centre is in the process of reviewing criminal laws during the hearing on a clutch of petitions challenging Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code which criminalises sedition.
The AG submitted before a bench headed by Chief Justice U.U. Lalit that something may happen in the winter session of the Parliament and there is no need to worry about the interim order in place. He requested additional time be granted to the Centre so that appropriate steps may be taken.
The bench, also comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi, asked whether a directive has been issued by the Centre to put in abeyance all pending proceedings and also to prevent any fresh filing of cases under Section 124A. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that directions regarding the same were sent to all Chief Secretaries.
Counsel, representing one of the petitioners, submitted that order says all pending trials with this section has to be kept in abeyance and the section needs to be struck down or else this order will continue indefinitely. To this, the AG said let the matter come after the Parliament session.
The top court, in its order, noted that the AG submitted that in terms of the directions issued by this court in its order on May 11 this year, the matter is still engaging the attention of the relevant authorities.
It said that AG has assured that in view of the interim directions issued by the court, every interest and concern stands protected and as such there would be no prejudice caused. After hearing arguments, the bench scheduled the matter for further hearing in January 2023.
The top court was hearing a clutch of petitions challenging Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code which criminalises sedition.
On May 11, the SupremeACourt said it is cognizant of the integrity of the state on one hand, and the civil liberties of citizens on the other, as it put on hold the colonial-era penal provision of sedition. The apex court also asked the Centre and state governments to refrain from registering any FIRs under the sedition provision, Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, till review of the law by Centre is complete.
The top court order came on a batch of pleas filed by Major General S.G. Vombatkere (retd) and the Editors Guild of India and others, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 124A which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
SC issues notice to Centre, EC on PIL seeking voting rights for prisoners
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Centre and the Election Commission (EC) on a PIL challenging the vires of Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which deprives prisoners of their right to vote.
A bench headed by Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi considered the submissions made by advocate Zoheb Hossain and sought response from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the poll panel.
The plea was filed in 2019 by Aditya Prasanna Bhattacharya, then a student of the National Law University, challenging the Constitutional validity of section 62(5) of the Act.
The plea contended that the provision, uses the yardstick of confinement in a prison to disenfranchise persons and this, coupled with the use of excessively broad language, causes the provision to generate several anomalous and shocking consequences.
“In addition to convicts who have been sentenced to a particular period of imprisonment, even under-trials, whose innocence or guilt has not been conclusively determined, are deprived of their right to vote, as they too are confined in prison, although they have not been sentenced to imprisonment,” said the plea.
After hearing submissions, the top court scheduled the matter for further hearing on December 29.
The plea argued that due to the excessively broad language used by the provision, even those detained in civil prison are deprived of their right to vote. Thus, there is no reasonable classification based on the purpose of the imprisonment, it added.
“The impugned provision operates in the nature of a blanket ban, as it lacks any kind of reasonable classification based on the nature of the crime committed or the duration of the sentence imposed (unlike several other jurisdictions such as South Africa, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Greece, Canada, et al). This lack of classification is anathema to the fundamental right to equality under Article 14,” said the plea.
The plea sought a direction that Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as being ultra vires of the Constitution for being violative of the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 and the constitutional right to vote under Article 326, and therefore read it down to ensure conformity with the Constitution. It further sought direction to the Election Commission of India to take all necessary steps to give effect to the right to vote for prisoners.
