Source:

https://www.epw.in/engage/article/why-the-citizenship-amendment-goes-against-the-basic-tenets-of-the-constitution

 

Model Answer:

Citizenship is at the heart of modern nation-state. Citizenship entails rightful claims on the state/govt. and that is why it is often fiercely contested.  Citizenship  in  India  is  currently  covered  under  two  legislations:  Part  II  of  the  Constitution  of India – 1950 and the Citizenship Act – 1955. However, neither of these legislations has defined citizenship clearly and only provide  the  prerequisites  for  a  “natural”  person  to  acquire  Indian  citizenship.  In this backdrop, Government of India introduced Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, to amend the 1955 Act.

Key provisions of citizenship Bill:

• The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, seeks to amend the 1955 Act to permit members of six communities — Hindu, Sikh,  Buddhist,  Jain,  Parsi  and  Christian  —  from  Pakistan,  Bangladesh  and  Afghanistan  eligible  for citizenship if they had entered the country before December 14, 2014.
• The third  schedule  of  the  1955  Act  is  proposed  to  be  amended  to  decrease  the  residence  requirement  from  11 years to six years.
• The bill relaxes the citizenship criteria for such immigrants and merges the categories of Persons of Indian Origin (PIO) and  Overseas  Citizen  of  India  (OCI)  OCI  card  holders  are  susceptible  to  lose  their  status  if  they violate any laws of the country.

Why do we need this Bill?

• It is to save the victims of Partition (Hindu-Bengalis), who got stuck in east-Pakistan in the initial years.
• There are thousands of Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Christians and Parsis who have entered India after facing religious persecution in countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan without any valid document.
• These refugees have been facing difficulty in getting Long Term Visa (LTV) or Citizenship
• The existing Citizenship law does not allow anyone granting Indian nationality if he or she can not show proof of documents on country of birth and therefore they have to stay at least 12 years in India.
• Those Hindus  who  are  persecuted  due  to  religion  has  no  other  place  to  go  except

Issues with the Bill:

• Although the provisions of the bill may not prima facie be unconstitutional, it can be deemed so if on reading it alongside other statutes, it becomes redundant, illegal, inoperable or immoral.
• It clearly  violates  Article  14  and  15  (1)  of  the  Constitution  as  it  makes  illegal  migrants  eligible  for  citizenship based on their religion.
• The relaxation  criteria  for  eligibility  of  illegal  migrants  to  gain  citizenship  is    With no explanation given as to the inclusion of this clause, it is prima facie unconstitutional, failing the test of reasonability contained in  Article  14  (Right  to  Equality)  of  the  Constitution  and  corrupting  the  “basic  structure  doctrine”  (Kesavananda Bharati case).
• Secularism is  a  basic  structure,  as  has  been  reiterated  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  S  R  Bommai  v  Union  of  India (1994). As understood in the Indian context, secularism means all religions are equal in the eyes of law and that the State shall not propagate or endorse one particular religion. This philosophy is also enshrined in the Preamble and in Articles 26 to 29 of the Constitution. Therefore, the bill fails this constitutional test.
• The direct  exclusion  of  Muslims  from  being  eligible  for  this  pathway  under  any  circumstances  makes  the constitutional form and citizenship communal.
• Bill goes against the Assam Accord 1985. The  National  Register  of  Citizens  (NRC)  is  being  currently  updated  in Assam to detect Bangladeshi nationals who might have entered the State illegally after the midnight of March 24, 1971. The date was decided in the 1985 Assam Accord.
• While Citizenship  (Amendment)  Bill,  2016  is  designed  to  grant  citizenship to  non-Muslim  refugees  persecuted  in neighbouring countries, NRC does not distinguish migrants on the basis of religion.
• NRC will consider deporting anyone who has entered the State illegally post-March 24, 1971, irrespective of their religion. But if the Bill becomes an Act, the non-Muslims need not go through any such process, meaning this will be clearly discriminating against Muslims identified as undocumented immigrants.
• The Bill  provides  wide  discretion  to  the  government  to  cancel  OCI  registrations  for  both  major  offences  like murder, as well as minor offences like parking in a no-parking zone or jumping a red light.

Way Forward:

• Instead of simply saying that members belonging to particular religions will be eligible for differential treatment, the bill should have laid down some general secular criteria (persecution history, history of migration etc) which could, in principle, at least, be applied to all groups.
• Define citizenship:  Parliament,  through  this  bill,  should  clarify  to  remove  doubts  and  bring  clarity  on  the abstractions of citizenship, nationality and domiciliation.
• Checks and balances: Curtail the wide powers given to the central government to rescind the OCI card status or at least put checks and balances in place by appointing a committee or an ombudsman.
• Remove religion  as  basis:  Remove  the  concession  of  six  to  12  years  of  residence  to  immigrants  based  only  the religion of the migrants, as it is inimical to the idea of secularism.
• Refugees: Look  into  the  status  of  refugees  and  under  what  conditions  they  can  obtain  citizenship  of  India, bearing in mind the international migrant crisis. Draw a clear demarcation between a refugee and an immigrant.

It  is  true  that  the  situation  of  coming  refugees  is  an  extra  burden  on  economy  and  administration  any  country.  But dealing with these issue with a global outlook with humanity is expected. Such a significant shift in India’s  policy should be  studied  and  analyzed  thoroughly,  rather  focusing  on  temporary  electoral  gains.  We  are  a  secular  country  with  a constitution  which  believes  in  the  right  to  liberty  without  any  discrimination.  We should reach out and take a universal stance over the refugees in all of our neighboring countries.