Many opposition political parties and their frontal organisations and ‘some professional opponents’ of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his government have protested the tabling and passage of the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) both inside and outside the parliament. The validity of the criticism of the Government move on CAB can be better gauged by going through the debate over the bill in the Lok Sabha where it was passed by an overwhelming majority after a long and comprehensive discussion.
The main charge of the opponents there was that the Bill is unconstitutional as it’s against Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The argument was that it discriminates between the religious communities and religion cannot be the basis of citizenship. Furthermore, it would also harm the interests of the north-east states in terms of encroachments upon their identity-cultural and linguistic. The Home Minister replied to the objections of the opposition leaders in extensive detail and tried to allay the fears, real or imaginary or manufactured.
It would be prudent to recall some of the main arguments put forth by the government in this regard. First, such a step was taken by the Congress, Home Minister Amit Shah argued, in the past when the division of India on religious lines was accepted under the leadership of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru even though Mahatma Gandhi had said division can be only on his dead body. Then he cited Nehru-Liyaqat Act which made it obligatory to look after the minorities and safeguard their interests by the respective governments. It did not happen. The religious minorities - Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis, Buddhists and Christians were continuously persecuted and tortured in Pakistan that compelled them to run and take shelter in India. There is no discrimination between the Muslims and Non-Muslims as Muslims in the three countries - Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh - are not a minority there; they are dominant ruling community.
Since many of the states of the North-east have the practice of innerline permit like Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland, the Act will not impact them. Major parts of Assam, Meghalaya and Tripura are also outside the ambit of the Bill, besides, Minister Shah also provided explanation for and rationale behind leaving out the countries like Nepal, Sri Lanka and Mayanmar among others. It were only those who had pre-decided not to be convinced come what may, remained unconvinced. The Lok Sabha in its collective wisdom decided finally in favour of the Passage of the Bill with a thumping majority.
Now coming to the main ground of opposing, the constitutionality. What does Article 14 say? It says that (1) The state shall not deny to any person equality before law or (2) equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Clearly the provision has two parts. Part one grants equality before law while part two talks of equal protection of the laws which in effect means equal treatment in equal circumstances. So, on the one hand the constitution prohibits discrimination between individuals under the law, on the other it empowers the state to classify the people and differentiate.
The only limitation is that once classified, there cannot be discrimination within the members of the same class. The judiciary even went to the extent of saying in the Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India that Article 14 will have to be understood with reference to or in the light of the Directive Principles of State policy.
Moreover, the constitution does provide some privileges to the President and governors besides the MPs and The MLAs, does one call it a violation of Art. 14? Even the members of the civil services cannot be proceeded against or prosecuted without the prior permission of the competent authority in some cases. In addition, the Supreme Court in the cases of state of Rajasthan vs Vidyawati, Kasturilal vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh emphatically denied any suit against the government for an injury in the course of the exercise of the sovereign functions of the government. The courts have upheld laws providing discriminatory provisions on reasonable grounds. According to P M Bakshi the classical test as judicially determined requires the fulfilment of two conditions, namely -
The classification must be based on an intelligible differential which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others and (2) the differential must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law under challenge. The CAB meets both these conditions. My purpose behind these arguments is merely to establish that the government of India is well within its constitutional right to make classification into groups like it has done in the case of citizen amendment Bill.
It has classified people entering India into intruders and refugees. It has denied the right to citizenship to the intruders and accepted the refugees for grant of Indian citizenship. Classification is founded on religious minorities entering the Indian Territory because of persecution on the basis of religion in the countries of their origin and therefore, one can safely say that the Bill stands on sound legal and constitutional footing.
The opposition seems to be playing a pure and simple politics, merely to aim at misleading and misguiding the Muslims and the youth of the north-east. The Bill has nothing to affect any section of the people or the region adversely. It’s time for the opponents to keep the national interest over and above the petty partisan objectives.
Let us neither create nor strengthen any source, wherever it might be, of division nor anyone should use this as an opportunity to spread hatred to divide Hindus and Muslims. Social wedges are difficult to bridge once widened and such a situation will not only weaken India as a society and a nation but it would also hinder the path of economic wellbeing of our country. It would also blunt our efforts to have a rightful place among the committee of nations. Let us hence work together to make the country and her people strong and prosperous.
(The author is a senior political analyst)