The primary argument of those speaking against the CAA and of the international media is that the Act violates the Indian constitution. In this article I explain why the CAA stands completely in sync with the Constitution.
Let’s speak of Article 14 first which is being cited most vociferously. The Article 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.’
Explanation –
Article 14 allowed reasonable classification. A reasonable classification is based on smart differences. This means that the grouped people make a properly defined class that is distinct from those left out of a group. This classification should then have a rational connection to the legislative objective.
Take for example the law on maternity benefits. It applies to women on the way to maternity. As the purpose of the law is to grant privileges only to women who turn out to be mothers when they need them, the category of men and women is based totally on intelligible differentia.
Similarly, the CAA give certain benefits or relaxations to minorities of three specific nations. The purpose of the Act is to grant benefits only to persecuted minorities in the three countries where Islam is the state religion. The ones excluded are the majority – Muslims. Hence the grouped people make a definite class completely distinct from those left out. This creates intelligible differentia and has a rational connection to the objective, i.e., relaxing citizenship.
Take a hypothetical situation. 100 people are persecuted in a neighbouring nation and a government allows immediate citizenship to Will the courts say ‘give relief to all 100 or to none’? No! Article 14 does not second guess policy matters. Neither does it call for addressing all wrongs to address some wrongs.
The Constitution lists boundaries of functioning. It tells what cannot be done. Does Article 14 say or imply that if citizenship rules are being relaxed or made more accommodative then the same must apply to all or absolutely none? No!
The law currently excludes all from the ‘express citizenship’ that’s being given under the CAA. The CAA has gone on to extend benefits of a safe and dignified life to persecuted minorities from declared Islamic states.
How can this be anti-secular?
Now we come to Article 15 and Article 21. Article 15 states: ‘The state shall not discriminate against any citizen on the grounds of race, religion, caste, sex and place of birth.’
Article 21 says: ‘No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.’
Harish Salve, one of leader’s leading legal minds, has this to say on the matter (not quoting verbatim):
The CAA does not violate Article 15 as the Article applies only to Indian citizens and not people from other countries. One becomes an Indian citizen after they are naturalised, not before.
The CAA does not violate Article 21 as the Article provides for right to life for those living in India and not those who want to enter India.
The CAA in no measure is against the fabric of India’s constitution. As far as the secular credentials go, the word secular wasn’t even in the original constitution. And even if it were, how is giving citizenship to minorities who’ve faced persecution for decades a violation of India’s ‘secular’ character?
WhatsApp us
Pingback: content