Explained: All about Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 and the row over it

Citizenship and rules pertaining to it find a mention in Part II of the Indian Constitution and Citizenship Act, 1955 which has been amended over the years. Article 11 of the Constitution gives power to the Parliament to make laws related to citizenship.

Other legislations to determine citizenship include Foreigners Act, 1946 and Passports Act, 1967.

When was the Citizenship Act, 1955 amended?

The act saw amendments in 1986, 1992, 2003, 2005, 2015 and 2019

According to the original legislation, the Citizenship Act, 1955, citizenship can be acquired in India through five ways – by birth, descent, registration, naturalisation (if one has resided in India for 11 years) and incorporation of territory.

Citizenship Act, 1955 prohibits illegal immigrants from acquiring Indian citizenship and defines illegal migrant as one who enters India without valid documents or one who enters India legally but overstays his/her visit.

The amendment in 1986, included provisions to grant citizenship to individuals who have one Indian parent. The amendment in 2003 was made keeping in mind the infiltration of immigrants from Bangladesh. The amendment mandated that, to get citizenship either both the parents should be Indian or if one parent was Indian, the other shouldn’t be an illegal migrant.

In an effort to offer citizenship to people of Indian origin living outside the country, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2003 introduced the Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) category. OCI cards allowed Indian-origin citizens who held passports of other countries and hailing from 16 countries other than Pakistan and Bangladesh, to avail lifelong visa and parity with NRIs except in matters of property.

The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2005 extended the scope of OCI to all Persons of Indian origin (PIO) from countries other than Pakistan and Bangladesh. The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2015 said that PIO category would be merged with OCI and known as ‘Overseas citizens of India Cardholder’ to give greater benefits to Indian diaspora.

What is the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019?

The new law aims to provide Indian citizenship to Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Parsis, Christians and Jains from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, who have been religiously persecuted in their country of origin and have migrated to India before December 31, 2014. The law cuts down the mandatory period of residence in India for the granting of citizenship from 11 years to six years.

The Bill was passed in Lok Sabha on December 9, 2019 with a majority of 311 votes against 80 and in the Rajya Sabha with a majority of 125 votes against 99 on December 11. It received the President’s assent on December 13.

The act has elicited severe criticism for using religion as a criterion to grant citizenship.

Why is it contentious?

The legislation faced stiff opposition even before it was passed in Parliament. The act has been criticised for granting legal citizenship to illegal migrants and allegedly flouting Article 14 of the Constitution that gives right to equality to both citizens and non-citizens.

Those opposing the implementation of the act have called it ‘anti-Muslim’ for limiting the legislation’s purview to just three Islamic countries and six non-Islamic religions, and ignoring other persecuted communities like the Sri Lankan Tamils or the Rohingya Muslims of Bangladesh.

It is being alleged that the act has been implemented to legitimize illegal Hindu migrants face deportation under National Register of Citizens (NRC), and was thus discriminatory to Muslims.

What sparked the nationwide protests against CAA?

The first set of protests against the act broke out in Assam. Local protesters view the act as a violation of the Assam Accord, 1985 which mentions the cut-off date of March 24, 1971 for determination of illegal immigrants.

The protests soon spread to other Indian cities, where students and citizens from all walks of life, took to the road to oppose the implementation of the act. The main contention of protesters was that the act was against the secular nature of India, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion. But, the protests took a violent turn when a clash ensured between police and students of Jamia Millia Islamia when the former barged into the campus, on December 15.

The agitation gained momentum when people in more than 15 states including Uttar Pradesh, Delhi and Karnataka, defied prohibitory orders under Section 144 and took to the streets on December 19.

Though protests turned violent in some parts, peaceful protests and rallies were carried out by people and political leaders in other parts of the country.

What is the international reaction to the issue?

While Bangladeshi and Pakistani media have been critical of the act, which they feel depicts India’s shift from secularism to fascism, the United Nations on December 26, said that the legislation was fundamentally discriminatory.

Even before the Bill was passed, the US Commission on International religious freedom said that it was a “dangerous turn in the wrong direction” and called for American sanctions against Home minister Amit Shah if the bill was passed by both houses of the Parliament.

What is the Centre’s stand?

The government says the three countries in question have Islam as the state religion and hence, Hindu minorities are at risk in those countries.

The government has blamed the opposition parties of misleading the nation about CAA and NRC. During a recent election rally, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the Congress along with other opposition parties and ‘urban naxals’ was instigating Muslims and creating fear among them against the act.

Slamming the Congress for ‘creating confusion’ over the act among minorities, Union Home Minister Amit Shah said the legislation has no provision to take away the citizenship of any minority community. He said the act aims to alleviate the miseries of refugees from minority communities of these three countries, who were leading a miserable life with no shelter and jobs.

Senior leaders have said that while persecuted Muslims had a lot of countries to take refuge in, Hindu minorities had only India to fall back on.

What lies ahead?

On petitions seeking an interim stay on CAA, the Supreme Court on December 18, refused to stay it but agreed to examine its constitutionality.

SC has issued a notice to the Centre and agreed to hear all 59 CAA petitions from January 22.