Context: Recently, the Supreme Court has declined to stay the operation of a Presidential order which petitioners claimed deprived Assam of the powers to implement the Inner Line system in its districts and limit the applicability of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.
The Inner Line

• A concept drawn by colonial rulers, the Inner Line separated the tribal-populated hill areas in the Northeast from the plains.
• To enter and stay for any period in these areas, Indian citizens from other areas need an Inner Line Permit (ILP).
• Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Mizoram are protected by the Inner Line, and lately, Manipur was added.
• The concept originates from the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation Act (BEFR), 1873.

Its inception

• The policy of exclusion first came about as a response to the reckless expansion of British entrepreneurs into new lands which threatened British political relations with the hill tribes.
• The BEFR prohibits an outsider’s — “British subject or foreign citizen” — entry into the are beyond the Inner Line without a pass and his purchase of land there.
• On the other hand, the Inner Line also protects the commercial interests of the British from the tribal communities.
• After Independence, the Indian government replaced “British subjects” with “Citizen of India”.
• Today, the main aim of the ILP system is to prevent settlement of other Indian nationals in the States where the ILP regime is prevalent, in order to protect the indigenous/tribal population.

How is it connected to the Citizenship Amendment Act?

• The CAA, which relaxes eligibility criteria for certain categories of migrants from three countries seeking Indian citizenship, exempts certain categories of areas, including those protected by the Inner Line system.
• Amid protests against the Act, the Adaptation of Laws (Amendment) Order, 2019, issued by the President, amended the BEFR, 1873, extending it to Manipur and parts of Nagaland that were not earlier protected by ILP.

What is the petition now?

• The petition was against the Presidential order. It said the order took away the Assam government’s permissive power to implement the ILP.
• This could have made the CAA inapplicable in these areas, the petition said.
• The CAA has given fresh legs to the demand.

What is Citizenship?

• Citizenship defines the relationship between the nation and the people who constitute the nation.
• It confers upon an individual certain right such as protection by the state, right to vote and right to hold certain public offices, among others, in return for the fulfilment of certain duties/obligations owed by the individual to the state.

Citizenship in India

• The Constitution of India provides for single citizenship for the whole of India.
• Under Article 11 of the Indian Constitution, Parliament has the power to regulate the right of citizenship by law. Accordingly, the parliament had passed the Citizenship act of 1955 to provide for the acquisition and determination of Indian Citizenship.
• Entry 17, List 1 under the Seventh Schedule speaks about Citizenship, naturalization and aliens. Thus, Parliament has exclusive power to legislate with respect to citizenship.
• Until 1987, to be eligible for Indian citizenship, it was sufficient for a person to be born in India.
• Then, spurred by the populist movements alleging massive illegal migrations from Bangladesh, citizenship laws were first amended to additionally require that at least one parent should be Indian.
• In 2004, the law was further amended to prescribe that not just one parent be Indian; but the other should not be an illegal immigrant.

Features of CAA 2019

• The Act seeks to amend the Citizenship Act, 1955 to make Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian illegal migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, eligible for citizenship of India. In other words, the Act intends to make it easier for non-Muslim immigrants from India’s three Muslim-majority neighbours to become citizens of India.
• The legislation applies to those who were “forced or compelled to seek shelter in India due to persecution on the ground of religion”. It aims to protect such people from proceedings of illegal migration.
• The amendment relaxes the requirement of naturalization from 11 years to 5 years as a specific condition for applicants belonging to these six religions.
• The cut-off date for citizenship is December 31, 2014, which means the applicant should have entered India on or before that date.

The Act says that on acquiring citizenship:

• Such persons shall be deemed to be citizens of India from the date of their entry into India, and
• All legal proceedings against them in respect of their illegal migration or citizenship will be closed.
• It also says people holding Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cards – an immigration status permitting a foreign citizen of Indian origin to live and work in India indefinitely – can lose their status if they violate local laws for major and minor offences and violations.

Exception

• The Act adds that the provisions on citizenship for illegal migrants will not apply to the tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura, as included in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.
• These tribal areas include Karbi Anglong (in Assam), Garo Hills (in Meghalaya), Chakma District (in Mizoram), and Tripura Tribal Areas District.
• It will also not apply to the areas under the Inner Line Permit under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873.

Criticism
It is against Muslims

• The fundamental criticism of the Act has been that it specifically targets Muslims. Thus, the religious basis of citizenship not only violates the principles of secularism but also of liberalism, equality and justice.
• It fails to allow Shia, Balochi and Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan and Hazaras in Afghanistan who also face persecution, to apply for citizenship.
• A key argument against the CAA is that it will not extend to those persecuted in Myanmar and Sri Lanka, from where Rohingya Muslims and Tamils are staying in the country as refugees.
• Neither is religious persecution the monopoly of three countries nor is such persecution confined to non-Muslims.

It violates Article 14

• Critics argue that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality.
• The CAA is in the teeth of Article 14, which not only demands reasonable classification and a rational and just object to be achieved for any classification to be valid but additionally requires every such classification to be non-arbitrary.
• The Act is an instance of class legislation, as classification on the ground of religion is not permissible.

Why North East is objecting to CAA?

• In the Northeastern states, the prospect of citizenship for massive numbers of illegal Bangladeshi migrants has triggered deep anxieties, including fears of demographic change, loss of livelihood opportunities, and erosion of the indigenous culture.
• The Act appears to violate the Assam Accord, both in letter and spirit.
• The Assam Accord, signed between the then Rajiv Gandhi-led central government and the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU), had fixed March 24, 1971, as the cutoff date for foreign immigrants. Those illegally entering Assam after this date were to be detected and deported, irrespective of their religion.
• The Citizenship Amendment Act moved the cutoff date for six religions to December 31, 2014, something that is not acceptable to the Assamese-speaking people in Brahmaputra Valley, who insist that all illegal immigrants should be treated as illegal.
• There is also an economic problem. If tens of thousands leave Bangladesh and start staying legally in Assam and North East, the pressure will first show in the principal economic resource—land.
• Also, since these will be legitimate citizens, there will also be more people joining the queue of job hopefuls that can potentially lower opportunities for the indigenous and the locals.
• It also boils down to the political rights of the people of the state. Migration has been a burning issue in Assam.
• There is a view that illegal immigrants, who will eventually become legitimate citizens, will be determining the political future of the state.

Other issues surrounding CAA

• CAA does not consider Jews and atheists. They have been left out of the Act.
• The basis of clubbing Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh together and thereby excluding other (neighbouring) countries is unclear.
• A common history is not a ground as Afghanistan was never a part of British India and was always a separate country.
• Countries such as Nepal, Bhutan, and Myanmar, which share a land border with India, have been excluded.
• The reason stated in the ‘Statement of Objects and Reasons’ of the Act is that these three countries constitutionally provide for a “state religion”; thus, the Act is to protect “religious minorities” in these theocratic states.
• The above reasoning fails with respect to Bhutan, which is a neighbor and constitutionally a religious state with the official religion being Vajrayana Buddhism.
• Non-Buddhist missionary activity is limited, construction of non-Buddhist religious buildings is prohibited and the celebration of some non-Buddhist religious festivals is curtailed. Yet, Bhutan has been excluded from the list.

Focus only on religious persecution

• On the classification of individuals, the Act provides benefits to sufferers of only one kind of persecution, i.e. religious persecution neglecting others.
• Religious persecution is a grave problem but political persecution is also equally existent in parts of the world. If the intent is to protect victims of persecution, the logic to restrict it only to religious persecution is suspect.
• The seemingly unconstitutional provisions of the CAA will deny equal protection of laws to similarly placed persons who come to India as “illegal migrants” but in fact grant citizenship to the less deserving at the cost of the more deserving
• The provisions of CAA might lead to a situation where a Rohingya who has saved himself from harm in Myanmar by crossing into India will not be entitled to be considered for citizenship, while a Hindu from Bangladesh, who might be an economic migrant and have not faced any direct persecution in his life, would be entitled to citizenship
• Similarly, a Tamil from Jaffna escaping the atrocities in Sri Lanka will continue to be an “illegal migrant” and never be entitled to apply for citizenship by naturalization.
• There is also a reduction in the residential requirement for naturalization — from 11 years to five. The reasons for the chosen time frame has not been stated.

Arguments in support

It is not against Muslims

• The Ahmediyas and Rohingyas can still seek Indian citizenship through naturalization (if they enter with valid travel documents).
• In any case, since India follows the principle of non-refoulment (even without acceding to the Refugee Convention 1951), they would not be pushed back.
• If a Shia Muslim is facing persecution and is in India seeking shelter, his case to continue to reside in India as a refugee shall be considered on its merits and circumstances.
• With regard to Balochi refugees, Balochistan has long struggled to be independent of Pakistan and including Balochis in the CAA could be perceived as interference in Pakistan’s internal affairs.
• The CAA, therefore, does not exclude Muslims from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan to apply for Indian citizenship. They can continue to do so in the same way singer Adnan Sami, for example, applied for citizenship.
• It is important to note that even minorities shall not be granted automatic citizenship. They would need to fulfill conditions specified in the Third Schedule to the Citizenship Act, 1955, namely, the good character requirement as well as physical residence in India
• Harish Salve, one of India’s biggest names in national and international law, has stated that the Citizenship Amendment Act is not anti-Muslim
• Salve stated that the countries specified in the CAA have their own state religion and Islamic rules. He added that Islamic majority nations identify their people as per who follows Islam and who does not. Addressing governance problems in neighbouring countries is not the purpose of the CAA.
• Over the issue of Rohingyas, Salve stated that a law that addresses one evil does not need to address all the evils in all countries. It is notable here that Myanmar, though a Buddhist majority nation, does not have a state religion and Myanmar does not feature in CAA bill.

The Act is not a violation of Article 14

Sovereign space

• To begin with, the justiciability of citizenship or laws that regulate the entry of foreigners is often treated as a ‘sovereign space’ where the courts are reluctant to intervene.
• Thus in Trump v Hawaii No. 17-965, 585 U.S. (2018), the US Supreme Court upheld travel ban from several Muslim countries holding that regulation of foreigners including ingress is “fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.”
• Indian courts have generally followed a similar reasoning. In David John Hopkins vs. Union of India (1997), the Madras High Court held that the right of the Union to refuse citizenship is absolute and not fettered by equal protection under Article 14.
• Similarly in Louis De Raedt vs. Union of India (1991), the Supreme Court held that the right of a foreigner in India is confined to Article 21 and he cannot seek citizenship as a matter of right.

?With respect to North East

• Citizenship Amendment Act does not dilute the sanctity of the Assam Accord as far as the cut-off date of March 24, 1971, stipulated for the detection/deportation of illegal immigrants is concerned.
• Citizenship Amendment Act is not Assam-centric. It is applicable to the whole country. Citizenship Amendment Act is definitely not against National Register of Citizens (NRC), which is being updated to protect indigenous communities from illegal immigrants.
• Further, there is a cut-off date of December 31, 2014, and benefits under Citizenship Amendment Act will not be available for members of the religious minorities who migrate to India after the cut-off date.

Historical Connections

• The Act does not give a carte blanche to Hindus and Christians and Sikhs from other countries to come to India and get citizenship. Just these three countries. Why?
• Because each of these has been civilizationally tied with India. The circumstances in which they were partitioned from India have created a situation where Hindus and other minority population have been dwindling ever since the partition took place.
• Regarding including other countries in the neighbourhood the argument could be that we can deal with them separately if the need arises as we did in the case of persecuted Sri Lankan Tamils