NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Tuesday in its order refused to stay the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and Rules 2024, after hearing a batch of pleas challenging it.
The apex court, however, issued notice to the Union of India (UOI) and sought its response by April 2 and said it would examine the issue later on.
A three-judge bench of the top court, led by the CJI D Y Chandrachud and also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, passed the order and fixed the matter for further hearing to April 9.
"We are not expressing any prima facie view in the matter," the bench said, and did not pass any interim order and refuse to stay the Rules under the Citizenship Amendment Act notified on March 11.
The petitioners desperately pleaded to the top court seeking a direction to stay the implementation of grant of citizenship to persecuted communities from Islamic states of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh till the SC decides stay application.
The court, however, did not find any merit in the batch of pleas to stay the CAA and rules, 2024.
The Central government on March 11, in its order notified the CAA Rules, 2024 which effectively brought into force the controversial CAA of 2019.
The Parliament on December 11, 2019 passed the CAA and also got the President's assent the following day.
A day after the Union of India (UOI) notified and issued the rules for the CAA 2024, the IUML, a Kerala-based political party, had on March 12 moved the top court seeking a direction for the stay of the implementation of the CAA.
The Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta appearing for the Union of India, submitted to the SC that the new law does not take away the citizenship of anyone. What is done is those who have migrated for the reasons mentioned in the Act.
"No new person is being given citizenship, referring to the 2014 cut-off date," he assured the SC.
Besises, the IUML and Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI), Asaduddin Owaisi, Kerala govt and many others had moved the top court and filed their respective separate applications seeking stay of the CAA and its rules.
The pleas claimed that the order of the Central Government, wrt CAA is in complete violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and unconstitutional, discriminatory and manifestly arbitrary.
Owaisi in his plea said that the said rule was discriminatory and arbitrary.
Kerala state government termed the CAA rules as, arbitrary and unconstitutional. "The said classifications based on religion and country are unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary, unreasonable, and contravened the principles of secularism," it said.
Questioning the move of the Center for doing it in such an hurry, Kerala govt said, “The fact that the defendant (Union) itself has no urgency in the implementation of the 2019 Act is a sufficient cause for staying the 2024 rules.
