On CAA rules Assam Congress seeks stay from Supreme Court

On CAA rules Assam Congress seeks stay from Supreme Court

Guwahati: Leader of Opposition in the Assam Legislative Assembly Debbarta Saikia on Tuesday filed an interlocutory application (IA) before the Supreme Court challenging the rules published by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for implementation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. of , 2019.
In the IA, Saikia also challenged the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, passed by Parliament on 12 December 2019, which aimed to grant Indian citizenship to persons who had immigrated to the country from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan till 31 December 2014.
Saikia argued that the rules introduced classification on the basis of religion and country, which, according to him, fails the manifest discretion test established in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1.
He asserted that such classification is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality to all persons, irrespective of citizenship status.
Further, Saikia contended that the Act and Rules lack any determinative principle and are thus patently arbitrary.
He highlighted the inconsistencies in the treatment of oppressed religious minorities in different countries, highlighting the exclusion of persecuted groups such as the Eelam Tamils ​​of Sri Lanka.
Saikia also asserted the violation of the Assam Accord of 1985, which mandates the deportation of foreigners who entered Assam after March 25, 1971.
They argued that granting citizenship to non-Muslim illegal immigrants is contrary to the treaty and damages the socio-economic fabric of the state.
Additionally, Saikia criticized the selective application of the Act and Rules, alleging that Muslim persons were discriminated against in proceedings before foreign tribunals.
He cited past instances of persecution and legal action against protesters and expressed concern over possible violation of fundamental rights.
Saikia objected to the notice issued by DCP (Crime) Guwahati to opposition leaders and alleged that it was an attack on democratic rights.
They argued that peaceful protests, such as the proposed “strike,” are constitutionally protected forms of expression and should not be curtailed.
Saikia pleaded with the court to stay the implementation of the impugned Acts and Rules pending a final decision on the present writ petition, citing the possible prejudice caused by their implementation after a long period of inactivity.

Leave a reply

Secured By miniOrange
Visitors: 190615