New Delhi, November 30
Terming the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 as “arbitrary” for considering religious minorities only from three countries, the DMK has told the Supreme Court that the Act was “against the Tamil race” as it allegedly discriminated against Sri Lankan Tamils staying in India as refugees.
“The impugned Act ignores the reality that for several decades Tamil refugees who have settled in Tamil Nadu are deprived with fundamental rights and other rights due to non-citizenship and due to non-naturalisation and the impugned Act does not provide for any reasons to exclude them,” the ruling party of Tamil Nadu said in an affidavit filed in the top court.
“Being stateless, they (Sri Lankan Tamil refugees) have been denied of employment in the government services or in organised private sectors, the right to hold property, right to vote, enjoyment of government benefits received by citizens and others despite there being an agreement for the same,” it said, adding due to such an ambiguity, they were forced to stay in camps where they were often exploited, having no prospects of security in future, the DMK submitted in its affidavit.
Passed by Parliament on December 11, 2019, the CAA was notified on January 10. It relaxes norms for grant of Indian citizenship by naturalization to Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Buddhist and Jain and Parsi victims of religious persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh who came to India before December 31, 2014.
However, the DMK said the Act introduced a completely new basis for the grant/non-grant of citizenship on the grounds of religion, which “destroys the basic fabric of secularism”. The law deliberately kept away Muslims who had suffered persecution and therefore it was highly discriminatory and manifestly arbitrary, the DMK said.
The DMK said the CAA was “arbitrary” as it relates to only three countries—Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh and confines to only six religions—Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian Communities and expressly excludes Muslim religion. “There is no reason as to why Muslims were altogether excluded even in the countries wherein they have suffered persecution,” it submitted.
Accusing the Centre of categorically remaining silent to the plight of the Tamil refugees, the DMK alleged that the step-motherly behaviour of the Centre towards Tamil refugees has left them living in constant fear of deportation and an uncertain future.
The top court had on January 22, 2020 refused to stay the operation of the CAA, saying ultimately a five-judge Bench might have to decide these issues. Acting on a transfer petition by the Central Government, it had restrained all high courts from passing any orders on the CAA.
The Supreme Court on September 22 asked the Centre to file “appropriate responses” to more than 220 petitions challenging the validity of the CAA after categorizing them into different segments.
The petitioners included Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, Congress leader and former Union minister Jairam Ramesh, AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, NGOs Rihai Manch and Citizens Against Hate, Assam Advocates’ Association and several law students. In 2020, the Kerala Government also filed a suit against the CAA.
However, asserting that the CAA did not impinge upon any existing rights of citizens, the Centre had in March 2020 defended the law, saying there was no question of it violating constitutional morality which is not an “unruly horse”. In an affidavit filed in the top court, the Centre said it won’t affect the legal, democratic or secular rights of citizens and requested the court to dismiss petitions challenging it
“CAA does not impinge upon any existing right that may have existed prior to the enactment of the amendment and further, in no manner whatsoever, seeks to affect the legal, democratic or secular rights of any of the Indian citizens. The existing regime for obtaining citizenship of India by foreigners of any country is untouched by the CAA and remains the same,” the Centre had said.