CAA through the eyes of law

This article is a legal interpretation and it should be read with no political , ideological or regional biass.
At the outset I must declare that I am against any form of violent protest going on across the country and especially those in the North Eastern States.

This is a small article in the form of questions and answers which may help you understand the situation in a better way.

Q.1 Is the Citizenship Amendment Act unconstitutional?
Ans– According to the little legal mind of mine, yes it is. Now the matter is before the honorable Supreme Court and the greatest legal minds of country shall decide on this matter.

Q.2 How is the CAA against the Constitution?

Ans. Because it’s violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Q.3 What is the article 14 of the constitution?

Ans. Article 14 provides the right to equality and is available to the citizens of India as well as non citizens. It provides for
a. Equality before law that is no person is above the law of the land.
b. Equal protection of law that is every person should be governed by same law.

Q.4 Does it mean that there can’t be a law specific for a group?

Ans. It can certainly happen. Equality is a very wide concept.
It’s whimsical to assume that everyone is on the same footing. Therefore treating unequals alike might lead to greater inequality. To take care of this situation the right to equality has been extended inorder to treat a group of equally placed people seperately. That is, there can be distinct laws for a group of people provided that the classification is reasonable.
Reasonable classification depends upon intelligible differentia.

Simply speaking Article 14 allows differential treatment of a group of people if the rationale of doing so serves a reasonable purpose. What is to be kept in mind that what it allows is similar treatment of all the equals and not to reclassify the equals arbitrarily. That is if there is a law for people with AIDS, it will apply to all the people who have AIIDS and not only to people of Allahabad with AIIDS unless there is a reasonable reason to do so.

Q.5 Then how is the CAA violative of the Constitution? It merely calls for a differential treatment of a group of people.

Ans. The CAA violates article 14 because it creates a group within a group of people without reasonably defining it.
The purpose of CAB has been declared under the clause 2 of the Statements of Objects and Reason(SoR) of the Bill.
The clause says that there has been a history of migration of religious minorities from our neighbouring countries who through their Constitutions uphold one religion as superior.
The clause aslo talks about pre indepence conditions when all of these places were a part of the same country.

Reason 1. While the CAA takes into account the minorities of Pakistan , Bangladesh and Afghanistan it fails to do so with regard to Srilanka(Tamils) and Myanmar(Rohingyas).
Both of these nations are our neighbours, both have through their Constitutions declared the superiority of a religion and there have been migration from both the Nations.
Reason 2. Certain minorities of Pakistan (Ahmedias) and Bangladesh ( Athiests) are not included. Ahmedias have been persecuted heavily in Pakistan and they are not even recognised as Muslims over there.

Reason 3. Afghanistan was not a part of pre Indipendence India.

Reason 4. The setting of the date of 31st December 2014 creates a division and no reason has been provided for it.

Reason 5. The Act prohibits granting of citizenship to those who are placed in the 6th Schedule Areas or States with Inner Line Permit of North East India. There seems to be no reason to prevent them from gaining citizenship. While in these areas even a Normal citizen of India has limited rights, a person who will gain Citizenship will also become a normal citizen and will not become a resident of these areas per say. He will still not have the extra rights which are reserved for the indigenous people of these areas.

Q.6 So is the protest right?
Ans. It’s a fundamental right to protest but it has to be done peacefully. Additionally the petitions challenging the validity of the Act have been accepted by the Apex court and it shall decide on it hence there is no point in violence and disruption.
The protest in Northeast was totally uncalled for. The Act in itself prohibits citizenship to illegal migrants present in those areas which according to me should be challenged.
The protest in North East shows the extent of our poor national integration.