Supreme Court

New Delhi: Hearing began on Wednesday in the Supreme Court on 144 petitions filed against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Meanwhile, a bench of Justices S Abdul Nazir and Justice Sanjiv Khanna said that the central government’s side would also be heard in the matter, till then the law would not be stayed. On behalf of the government, Attorney General KK Venugopal said that 144 petitions have been filed regarding CAA. Now new petitions should not be accepted. If new petitions continue, then we need more time to give each answer. The Attorney General has sought 6 months for this.

Updates
Even before the commencement of the hearing, Attorney General Venugopal said – the atmosphere of the court must remain calm. He told the Chief Justice – There should be rules on who can come in this court and who does not. The Supreme Court of American and Pakistan also have some rules for those inside the court room.
Sibal said- The process of National Population Register will begin in April. Therefore, the court should do something before that. Until the NPR is deferred for 3 months, the judge can take a decision on the ongoing dispute over the citizenship law.
Sibal said- the court should decide whether these petitions should be sent to the Constitution Bench or not.
The AG said – The Center was not given petitions related to Assam. In the petitions that were not given to us, time should be given for the response.
Chief Justice said – Hearing only one side will not be decided. We need to listen to the center.

The CAA provides for citizenship to people from Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, Jain and Parsi communities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who came to India since December 31, 2014. The Citizenship Amendment Bill was approved by President Ram Nath Kovind on 12 December 2019 after passing it in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. After this it became law. Protests took place across the country, including the Northeast. During this violence, people also lost their lives in many states including UP.

In which petition, what was said?
Indian Union Muslim League: IUML said in the petition- CAA violates the fundamental right to equality. It is meant to grant citizenship to a section of illegal migrants and has been discriminated against on the basis of religion. It is against the basic structure of the Constitution. This law clearly discriminates against Muslims, as it will only benefit Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians. CAA be given an interim ban. Also, the Foreign Amendment Order 2015 and Passport Entry Amendment Rules 2015 should also be stopped from functioning.

Congress: Jairam Ramesh said in the petition- This law is a “shameless attack” on the fundamental rights given by the Constitution. It treats equal people as unequal. The question about the law is whether citizenship in India Can religion be the basis for giving or refusing? This is clearly an unconstitutional amendment to the Citizenship Act 1955. Suspicious law makes two types of classification. The first is based on religion and Second, on the basis of geographical conditions. Both the classifications have no proper relation to the purpose for which this law has been introduced i.e. giving roof, protection and citizenship to the communities who have come to India, who are oppressed on the basis of religion in neighboring countries. Had to fall prey to

RJD, Trinamool, AIMIM: RJD leader Manoj Jha, Trinamool MP Mahua Moitra, AIMIM Chief Asaduddin Owaisi questioned the constitutional validity of the CAA. Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, All India Assam Student Union, Peace Party, CPI, NGO Rhea Manch and Citizens Against Hate, advocate ML Sharma and some law students also filed petitions against CAA.

Kerala: Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan had challenged in the Supreme Court the law against secularism. The Kerala government had said- We will continue our fight against the law, as it is going to harm the secularism and democracy of the country. Apart from Kerala, the Punjab Assembly has also passed a resolution against the CAA. At the same time, non-BJP ruled states like Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, West Bengal and Maharashtra have already spoken about not implementing it.

The court said in the last hearing – our job is to check validity
The Supreme Court had on 9 January heard a petition seeking to declare the law constitutional. The bench immediately denied the hearing, saying that the country was going through a difficult period. A hearing will be held when the violence stops. For the first time, when someone is demanding to make the law of the country constitutional, while our job is to check legitimacy.