The Citizenship Amendment Act 2024 (CAA) and its Interplay with Articles 14 and 6 of the Bharat (India) Constitution

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), passed in December 2019, has been a source of intense debate in India. This act amends the Citizenship Act of 1955 by offering a fast-track path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants belonging to specific religious minorities – Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians – from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, who entered India on or before December 31, 2014. Muslims are conspicuously absent from this list. This religious basis for citizenship determination has raised concerns about its compatibility with Articles 14 and 6 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and the right to equality in matters of public employment respectively.

Understanding Articles 14 and 6

• Article 14: Equality Before Law

This fundamental right enshrined in Part III of the Constitution prohibits the state from denying "any person" equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within India's territory. It ensures that everyone is subject to the same laws and receives equal treatment from the state, regardless of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

• Article 6: Equality in Public Employment

This article guarantees that all Indian citizens have equal opportunity for appointment to any office under the state. It prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth in public service recruitment.

The CAA and Article 14: Equality Concerns

Critics argue that the CAA violates Article 14 by creating an arbitrary classification based on religion. The does not apply to Muslim immigrants from the three specified countries, since they are religious majorities in those countries. This, they claim, fosters unequal treatment and undermines the principle of religious neutrality enshrined in the Constitution.

Equality of equals:

For e.g. scheduled castes are in a different category than brahmins so the article 14 does not apply and special priveleges given to scheduled castes

There is a concept of "equality of equals" in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. This principle ensures that those who are similarly situated are treated equally under the law. However, Article 14 also allows for "reasonable classification." This means the government can create different categories of people for specific purposes, as long as the classification is based on a logical distinction and has a rational connection to the objective of the law.

In the case of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Brahmins, the Indian Constitution recognizes a historical reality. SCs have faced centuries of social and economic marginalization due to the caste system. This puts them in a demonstrably different situation compared to Brahmins.

Here's how Article 14 and affirmative action (an American term for justive by equality) for SCs work together:

• Understanding Historical Disadvantage: Article 14 acknowledges that SCs haven't had equal opportunities due to past discrimination.
• Reasonable Classification: SCs are considered a disadvantaged group due to their historical experiences. This creates a reasonable basis for differentiating them from Brahmins for the purpose of affirmative action programs.
• Leveling the Playing Field: Special privileges like reservations in education and government jobs aim to bridge the historical gap and create a more equal playing field for SCs.

The Ongoing Debate:

The effectiveness and fairness of affirmative action for SCs is an ongoing discussion. While Article 14 guarantees equality, it also allows for measures to address historical inequalities. The challenge lies in ensuring these measures are effective in achieving true equality without creating new social divisions.

Proponents of the CAA counter that it is not discriminatory because it addresses the specific issue of religious persecution faced by these minority groups in neighboring countries. They argue that the act seeks to provide refuge to those who have fled religious violence and offers a humanitarian exception to the general citizenship process.

The Interplay: Balancing National Security and Equality

The debate surrounding the CAA and Article 14 hinges on the interpretation of "reasonable classification." The Supreme Court of India has established that Article 14 does not guarantee absolute equality, but allows the government to make classifications for legitimate state purposes. However, these classifications must be based on intelligible differentia and have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

In the context of the CAA, the government argues that the classification based on religion is justified due to the specific situation of religious persecution faced by the aforementioned minority groups. However, critics contend that this rationale is weak. They point out that the act doesn't assess individual cases of persecution; instead, it broadly excludes Muslims, a group that also includes victims of religious violence. Furthermore, they argue that the act prioritizes religious identity over the more relevant factor of facing persecution.

The Potential Impact on Public Employment (Article 6)

While the CAA primarily deals with citizenship, its potential impact on public employment cannot be entirely disregarded. Article 6 guarantees equal opportunity for all citizens in public service jobs. If a large number of Hindus and Christians from neighboring countries gain citizenship through the CAA, it could potentially affect the religious composition of government jobs, particularly in border regions with these countries.

This, however, is a secondary concern compared to the primary challenge of reconciling the CAA with Article 14. The question remains whether the religious classification employed in the act can be considered a "reasonable classification" that meets the test of Article 14.

Srila Prabhupada's views on Hindu-Muslim violence:

In an excerpt, Srila Prabhupada emphasizes the temporary nature of the material world and the futility of violence. He uses the example of the riots, where after death, it was impossible to distinguish between Hindus and Muslims.

Who doesn't like CAA?:

There are several groups protesting the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in India. Here's a breakdown of the main categories:

• Muslim Organizations: Since the CAA excludes Muslims, many Muslim organizations are at the forefront of the protests. They incorrectly see the act as discriminatory and a violation of India's secular principles although this is not about Indian citizens but immigration from other countries.
• Civil Rights Activists: Civil rights groups across India believe the CAA undermines the Constitution's guarantee of equality before the law (Article 14). They argue that religion shouldn't be a basis for citizenship.
• Students and Youth Groups: Students from various universities, particularly those with a history of activism, have been vocal against the CAA. They see it as a step towards a Hindu-centric nation and a threat to India's social fabric.
• Opposition Political Parties: Many opposition parties, particularly those with strong regional bases, have opposed the CAA. They criticize the government's handling of the issue and its potential impact on national unity.
• People in Assam and Other North-Eastern States: People in Assam and other northeastern states have expressed concern that the CAA might encourage further migration from Bangladesh, putting a strain on resources and potentially impacting their cultural identity.
• Kejriwal, a politician in Delhi has raised concerns about increase in unemployment due to a 10 Million influx expected from three neighboring countries. However if we are to draw a parallel, about 7 million immigrants have entered the USA under the Biden regime without perceptible employment statistics change in the USA (most immigrats seem to take undocumented low level labor jobs)

Conclusion:

Whether including Muslims in the CAA poses a security threat is a debatable issue. Existing security measures, combined with individual assessments, may be more effective than relying solely on religious categorization. However history of cross border assaults on India reinforce the need for being cautious as CAA is implemented.

References:

1. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/2/4/india-says-no-plans-yet-to-implement-nrc-amid-continuing-protests
2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/india-enacts-citizenship-law-criticised-as-discriminatory-to-muslims