CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT BILL 2019: BRINGING LEGALITY TO THE SHADOWS

Introduction

Across the globe, nations are striving to regulate their populations and prioritize the well-being of their citizens. As part of this effort, many countries have been tightening border controls, increasing deportations, and strictly regulating the status of illegal immigrants. In India, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) represents a significant legislative move by the Central Government to address the status of certain undocumented immigrants based on religious identity.
The Act, passed amidst significant political and public discourse, aims to offer citizenship to persecuted minorities from neighbouring Islamic republics. However, its constitutional validity, implications for national resources, demographic impact, and social consequences have ignited widespread debate, both in the legal and civil spheres.

Background and Legislative Intent

The Central Government contends that the constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh explicitly recognize Islam as the state religion. Consequently, religious minorities—namely Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians—have been subjected to religious persecution in these countries.

Many individuals from these persecuted communities have fled to India, often entering without valid documentation or overstaying after the expiration of their travel permits. The government has asserted that the Act is a humanitarian measure, intended to regularize and offer Indian citizenship to those who had entered the country on or before 31st December 2014 and have since sought refuge.

On 13 December 2019, President Ram Nath Kovind gave his assent to the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, thereby converting it into an enforceable Act.

Salient Features of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019

1. Grant of Citizenship: The Act amends Section 2 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, by exempting members of the six identified religious communities (Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian) from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, who entered India without valid documents, from being treated as illegal migrants.

2. Reduced Residency Requirement: It reduces the minimum residency requirement for naturalization from 11 years to 5 years for the specified group.

3. Exemptions: The Act does not apply to:

   • The tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura governed by the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.

   • Areas under the Inner Line Permit (ILP) regime, notified under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873.

4. Protection from Penal Laws: The Central Government is empowered to exempt these individuals from penal consequences under:

   • The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, and

   • The Foreigners Act, 1946.

Constitutional Concerns

1. Violation of Article 14 – Equality Before the Law

The principle of equality, enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution, prohibits arbitrary discrimination. The Act classifies illegal migrants on the basis of religion, which many argue constitutes an unreasonable classification. It excludes Muslim minorities (such as Ahmadiyyas, Hazaras, and Shias) from neighbouring countries, who may also face persecution.

In landmark judgments such as State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, the Supreme Court held that classification must be based on intelligible differentia and have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Critics argue that the religious classification in the CAA fails this test.

Socio-Economic and Legal Implications

1. Population Pressure and Resource Allocation

Legalizing undocumented immigrants increases the burden on public services, including healthcare, education, and housing. Government expenditure will rise to accommodate these new citizens, potentially leading to increased taxationfor existing citizens.

2. Increased Risk of Crime and Human Trafficking

Higher population density without proportional infrastructure may result in a spike in crime rates, including trafficking and exploitation. Young children are especially vulnerable, with reports indicating that many are being trafficked and sold into organized crime networks.

According to immigration authorities in Chennai, around 140 individuals are deported or prevented from traveling each month due to illegal entry or document-related violations. A 2006 International Organization for Migration (IOM) report noted that most smuggled migrants transiting Central Asia originate from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.

3. Public Health Concerns

Many undocumented immigrants may enter without undergoing mandatory health screenings, potentially bringing communicable diseases into the country, especially in border regions with limited medical infrastructure.

4. Employment and Economic Competition

The Act may lead to increased competition for jobs, particularly in the informal sector. This could adversely affect low-income citizens and deepen economic inequalities.

Conclusion

While the intent behind the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 may be rooted in humanitarian principles, its execution raises serious constitutional, ethical, and practical questions. The exclusion of specific religious groups, the burden on national resources, the threat to internal security, and the possible violation of Article 14 call for judicial review and policy reconsideration.
It is incumbent upon the legislature and judiciary to ensure that national interest is balanced with humanitarian concerns, and that citizenship—one of the most sacred legal entitlements—is not granted at the cost of the constitutional fabric of the Republic.

Kindly share this link  https://shataxiamicuslex.blogspot.com/2019/12/blog-post_13.html

---

[1] https://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Migrant-Smuggling/Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review.pdf