Can Hear Assam, Tripura-Related Petitions on CAA Separately, Says SC; Centre 4 Weeks to Reply

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it can hear Assam and Tripura-related petitions on the Citizenship Amendment Act separately from the other pleas against the contentious law and gave the Centre two weeks to file a response on the cases.

A bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde said it will hear petitions pertaining to Assam and Tripura separately as the problem with CAA in these two states is different from rest of the country.

"The petitions concerning Assam and Tripura can be dealt with separately," the court said. It said the earlier cut off date for citizenship in Assam was March 24, 1971 and noted that it has been extended till December 31, 2014 under the CAA.

The court has given the Centre four weeks to respond to petitions against the CAA, refusing to pass any ex-parte order without hearing the Centre on staying the operation of the amended law and the National Population Register (NPR) exercise. It also restrained all high courts from hearing pleas on the CAA till it decides on the pleas.

The CAA seeks to grant citizenship to migrants belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, Jain and Parsi communities who came to the country from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan on or before December 31, 2014. President Ram Nath Kovind gave assent to the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 on December 12, turning it into an Act.

Several petitions have been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the CAA. Among those who have filed pleas are the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, RJD leader Manoj Jha, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra and AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi.

The IUML said in its plea that the CAA violates the fundamental Right to Equality and intends to grant citizenship to a section of illegal immigrants by making an exclusion on the basis of religion.

The petition had alleged that the government's CAA was against the basic structure of the Constitution and intended to explicitly discriminate against Muslims as the Act extended benefits only Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians.

The plea filed by Ramesh said the Act is a "brazen attack" on core fundamental rights envisaged under the Constitution and treats "equals as unequal".

The other petitioners include the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, the All Assam Students Union (AASU), the Peace Party, the CPI, NGOs 'Rihai Manch' and Citizens Against Hate, advocate M L Sharma, and law students.

With agency inputs