 In the last couple of months or little more, I have witnessed massive arguments, disagreements and discord in relation to the newly enacted Citizenship Amendment Act 2019. Most of these very intense and passionate debates are happening between the celebrated intellectuals, be it legal experts, academicians, lawyers, journalists, writers, authors or learned component of politicians. These heated discussions have also caused huge collateral damage in the form of causing significant upheaval in chaos in the society. I really salute the Indian constitutional and legal ecosystem for it guarantees freedom of speech and expression, which in turn enables all of us to air and share our views. I recently saw some written pieces of opinions as well as videos on the validity of the CEA by some learned people including lawyers. Most were bashing and relentlessly attacking the CEA by leaning on their understanding and contentions. But I earnestly and with due regard to all these anti-CEA intellectuals back to differ. I disagree with them not for the sake of it or for some ideological differences. I oppose their arguments on the basis of my well-researched contentions, claims and beliefs which find nothing wrong with the CEA, whether from legal or constitutional perspective or even moral principles. It is a positive law and not restrictive or prohibitive in any manner, nor is it prejudicial or discriminatory. It is on the contrary, I feel a facilitatory law. So my fellow beings kindly listen to my arguments and reasons attentively for the next 20-25 minutes or so and if possible have a notebook and pen to make notes. Let us first understand the relevant provisions of the CEA, read with the passport entry into India Amendment Rules 2015-2016 and the Foreigner's Amendment Order 2015-2016 and the passport entry into India Act 1920 and rules and orders made there under. The Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 and the notification brought about in 2015 and 2016 and the passport entry into India Rules 1950 and the Foreigner's Order 1948 have provided listen carefully that Hindus seeks Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan who were compelled to seek shelter in India due to religious persecution or fear of religious persecution and who entered into India on or before 31 December 2014 without valid travel documents including passport or validity of any of such documents having expired will not be treated as illegal migrants and shall be eligible to apply for the Indian citizenship by virtue of registration or naturalization and on grant of 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 that's the crux of it only the citizenship act lets a person apply for citizenship by naturalization if the person meets prescribed qualifications including that the person must have resided in India for the last 12 months and for at least 11 years of the preceding 14 years. Now for Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from three countries Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan the CAA reduces the 11 years requirement to 5 years. Now that's the core of the CAA in question the critics have attacked the CAA mainly on the ground that it is unconstitutional for it is discriminatory and violative of the article 14 of the constitution of India which extends not only to the Indian citizens but also foreigners residing in India article 14 of the constitution of India provides that the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India hence it contains two commandments it's clear two commandments for the state one not to deny to any person equality before law and also not to deny the equal protection of the laws equality before law forbids discrimination thus having a negative connotation whereas the concept of equal protection of the laws requires the state to give special treatment to persons in distinct circumstances so as to create equality amongst all it is obviously positive in nature as a natural consequence a harmonious construction or understanding of the dual part of article 14 shall be that equals would be regarded equally whereas unequals shall be treated unequally admittedly settle position of law in so far as article 14 is concerned is that it only permits laws to differentiate between groups of people if the justification or reasoning for doing so caters to a reasonable purpose now it is alleged by many experts that the CAA violates the right to equality under article 14 of the constitution as it provides differential treatment to illegal migrants on the basis of faith that is religion and their origin that is nation they belong to and so on so everything boils down to the test of reasonability which means unassailable logic unimpeachable rationale and immaculate reasoning in fact the most significant ingredient of public policy making which includes obviously any form of legislation is the legitimacy of the need to introduce a particular public policy or let us say legislation laws are not introduced and passed in a democracy illogically at least that is the implied you know assumption unless proved otherwise in a constitutional court however here I am taking an onus of proving that it is a reasonable fair and constitutionally valid law even if even even in the absence of of there being any worthy argument against the CAA because I feel that most of the arguments against the CAA are sweeping in nature they are presumptuous and based more on the alleged future design of the current establishment as a good policy propagator I need to prove primarily noted three aspects I need to prove primarily three aspects of legislation to prove that the CAA does qualify as a reasonable law being in conformity with the constitutional mandate including article 14 in specific first I need to prove that the existence of legitimate mandate is there with the parliament to enact the CAA second I need to prove the genuineness of its objective and thirdly I will need to prove that the CAA qualifies and meets the tests laid down in the relevant judicial precedents let's say supreme court judgments in that respect or surrounding that let us start with the legitimate mandate ground the right of citizenship in India had commenced only on its independence the British rule provided no such right of citizenship pre-independence era had the British the British citizenship and alien rights act of 1914 which got repealed in 1948 it is a matter of fact that Indians did not have any law of citizenship the constitution of India as embraced and passed by the constituent assembly included articles 5 to 9 which exist even today which laid down as to who were to be the Indian citizens at the commencement of the constitution now climaxing my argument on the first ground article 10 of the constitution provides that the Indian citizens shall continue to be so subject to the provisions of any law that may be made by the parliament so clear mandate was granted to the parliament in relation to the continuance of the right of citizenship it's clear and not only article 10 the very next article that is article 11 of the constitution expands the power to regulate the right of citizenship expands the power of parliament to regulate the right of citizenship what does it say articles 11 of the Indian constitution the Indian constitution unambiguously enables the parliament to legislate on the matters of acquisition and termination of citizenship so there is a specific provision of categoric mandate to the parliament to legislate comprehensively on the domain of citizenship that's a sole prerogative here i would also like to extend the corroborative evidence from the debates that took place on articles five and six in the constituent assembly when dr. b. r. and betkar the chairman of the drafting committee of the constitution of india had voiced you know difficulty in drafting article five yes and what he said he had said then that it is not the object of this particular article to lay down a permanent law of citizenship for the country that's not the object you know to have permanent law of citizenship for the country the business of laying down permanent law of citizenship has been left to the parliament that's what he said and as members will see from the wordings he said the entire matter regarding citizenship has been left to parliament to determine by any law it may deem fit dr. and betkar did not stop there as he further said that the parliament may make all together a new law embodying new principles he also emphasized that the provisions made by the constituent assembly for citizenship on the date of commencement of the constitution were not meant to be permanent or unalterable but ad hoc for the time being dr. b. r. and betkar spoke in absolutely unequivocal terms when he said that it was not possible to cover every matter dealing with conferring citizenship on the date of commencement of the constitution if there is any category of people who are left out that is what he said we have given power to parliament to make provision for them subsequently so clear mandate and intention not only dr. and betkar even then power you know not only dr. and betkar beg your pardon the the the prime minister then joie and neru in his speech on 14th august 1947 at parliament house said i quote we think also of our brothers and sisters who have been cut off from us by political boundaries and and who unhappily cannot share at present in the in the freedom that has come they are of us and will remain of us whatever may happen and we shall be sharers of their good and ill fortune alike so there was an element of sensitivity and emotions and and logic for those brethren who were beyond borders that's the historic significance consequently you know the parliament brought in the citizenship act 1955 which provided for the acquisition of citizenship after the commencement of the constitution by birth descent registration naturalization and incorporation of territory it also made necessary provisions for the termination and denial of citizenship under certain circumstances the citizenship act 1955 has undergone 10 amendments to date in 1957 1960 twice in 1985 1986 92 2004 2005 2015 and now 2019 now the legislative mandate to pass the ca is established beyond doubt i feel hence i move to ground two which is to prove the genuineness of the objective behind the ca 2019 the partition of greater india in 1947 was the split of british india into two independent dominion states the union of india and the dominion of pakistan the union of india became the republic of india the dominion of pakistan is today the islamic republic of pakistan and the people's republic of bangladesh it is a matter of undisputed fact that the partition was not based on geographical or territorial claims it's a matter of fact but it involved the division of two provinces bangal and panjab based on district-wise non-muslim or muslim majorities that's a matter of fact the partition perished about half a million people and displaced about 12 million people along the religious lines triggering devastating refugee crisis there was last scale violence and many muslims from what would become india fled to pakistan and hindus and seeks from what would become pakistan fled to india many people left behind their possessions and property to avoid the violence and flee to their new country the vicious disposition of the partition generated an atmosphere of antagonism and immocity and suspicion between the nation's concerned that that sadly you know afflicts their relationship even today though the country was divided primarily based on religion after partition india became a secular state while at the same time the other nation chose to become islamic nation it is believed that this led to organized way of religious persecution for minorities which continues till date whereby the minorities are forced to suffer socially and politically and ultimately displaced from their native places the influx of large number of people has visibly impacted india's demographic pattern as well here i will also like to cite the historical fact of an agreement between the governments of india and pakistan regarding security and rights of minorities that agreement was known as nehru leaqat agreement which was signed uh if i'm not mistaken on on april 8th 1950 the government of india and pakistan had agreed in that agreement that each shall ensure to the minorities throughout its territory complete equality of citizenship irrespective of religion irrespective of religion a full sense of security in respect of life culture property and and personal honor freedom of movement within each country and freedom of occupation speech and worship subject to law and morality members of the minorities shall have equal opportunity with members of the majority community to participate in the public life of their country to hold political or other office and to serve in their country's civil and armed forces both governments declared these rights to be fundamental and undertake to enforce them you know effectively however continuing movement of non-muslim immigrants to india proves another story the citizenship act 1955 regulates who may acquire indian citizenship and on what grounds a person may become an indian citizen if they are born in india or have indian you know parentage or have resided in the country for a period of time and so on but illegal migrants are forbidden from acquiring indian citizenship because you know they enter the country without valid travel documents like a passport and visa or enter with valid documents but but you know stay beyond the permitted time period the illegal migrants may be imprisoned or deported under the foreigners act 1946 and the passport entry into india act 1920 the ca 2019 and government notifications of 2015 and 2016 as i had discussed earlier were brought in to legitimize the stay in india of illegal migrants belonging to these six religion from three countries and also making them eligible to apply for indian citizenship but people ask why is afghanistan included in the amendment when it was not part of partition of india well it is a matter of fact that there have been multiple attacks against indian assets interests in afghanistan the minority communities in afghanistan had migrated to afghanistan from pakistan region during pre-independence india they are facing continuous atrocities due to their indian origin a number of persons belonging to minority communities in afghanistan have also come to india on account of religious persecution or fear of religious persecution but then why people ask or critics ask that why other neighboring countries like you know Sri Lanka Myanmar etc are left out now here it is important to note that the government of india has issued a SOP standard operating procedure it was introduced in 2011 for dealing with foreign nationals in india who claim to be refugees these guidelines are applicable to refugees from various countries including Sri Lanka Myanmar and so on so there is a provision for their aid in assistance and backup notifications issued in 2015 and 2016 which i referred earlier were intermittent reprieve for the illegal immigrants so that they are not prosecuted punished or imprisoned or deported while the CA is a process of grant of citizenship based on the prescribed procedure and eligibility criterion it's not automatic you know the grant of citizenship under the CA there will be an organized mechanism available with the government to verify the claims and authenticity of the applicants as to religious persecution in their respective countries in fact as per the standard operating procedure which is under preparation at the government of india's end for an applicant who applies with an affidavit mentioning that that you know he or she was compelled to migrate to india due to religious persecution or fear of religious persecution along with you know other documents a detailed inquiry will be conducted by foreign foreigners you know regional registration office or foreigners registration office concerned to verify his or her claim if the affidavit is not supported by documents the case will be referred to the foreigners tribunal to be constituted for this purpose under the foreigners tribunal's order 1964 for verification of the claim regarding religious persecution the the CA does not add or amplify any provision against Muslims or for that matter any religious group it merely facilitates settlement for a small set of minority communities it is amply clear that there from the discussion which i've had with you until now that there exists genuineness of the highest order in the objective behind the passage of the CA which is humanitarian and it finds it its origin from the partition days so it has a historical perspective finally the third and last ground of judicial precedents as to the test of reasonability constitutionality and article 14 of the indian constitution the CA quite easily fits into the test of reasonable classification you know as settled by a seven judge bench in the state of west bengal versus anwar ali sarkar you know 1952 judgment there is there is utmost clarity and reasonability in the classification adopted in the CA as to the drawn distinction as mentioned by me earlier article 14 covers both negative notion of equality before law as well as the positive feature of equal protection of law it uh it enshrines no special provision to be made in favor of anyone and that all are equally subject to the ordinary law of the the land uh the the the the positive conception conception of equality does not assume or suggest equal treatment of all persons without distinction but instead accentuates on equality of treatment in equal circumstances or two similarly situated persons that that's important a legislature is entitled to make reasonable classification for purposes of legislation and treat all in one class on equal footing one may here refer to ram krishna dalmia versus justice sr tendalkar 1959 judgment of the honorable supreme court wherein the exact connotation and extent of article 14 was a code the court had held that while article 14 forbids class legislation it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation now in in order however to you know to pass the the the the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled i mean that has been held by the supreme court those are that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differential which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from from others left out of the group and that the differential must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the statute in question it was also observed by the supreme court that that a law may be constitutional that a law may be constitutional even though it relates to a single individual you know if on account of some you know special circumstances or reasons applicable to him and not applicable to others that single individual may be treated as a class by himself that's what supreme court held or has held and that there is always a presumption supreme court has said in favor of constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression transgression of the constitutional principles and that it must be presumed that the legislature understands supreme court said and correctly appreciates the need of its own people that's the presumption and and its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds and supreme court said that the legislature has is free to recognize degrees of harm as well in order to you know sustain the presumption of constitutionality of the court it may take into consideration matters of common knowledge matters of common report the history of the times and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation in parents association versus union of india 2000 judgment distinction was drawn between treatment of the pre-1942 settlers and the post-1942 settlers in andaman and nikobar islands by the central government on consideration of the historical background of the island and reservation of 50 percent in their favor in allotment of seats for higher educational courses you know it was upheld against other effluent group on the ground that they belong to a separate category due to their struggle suffering and were considered as backward socially and educationally there are there are several other cases like you know javed versus state of hariana 2003 case clearance pious versus union of india 2001 case then parisans agrotech private limited versus union of india 2015 supreme court case where you know the courts have the court has held that once it is found that there is a sufficient material for taking a particular policy decision bringing it within the four corners of article 14 of the constitution power of judicial review would not extend to determine the correctness of such policy decisions such a policy decision beg your pardon or to indulge into the exercise of finding out you know whether there could be more appropriate or better alternatives that that's not the forte of of the supreme court the legislature is free to be in its own wisdom do that the legislature is therefore competent to exercise its its discretion and make reasonable classification differential treatment does not per se constitute violation of article 14 additionally the cAA has absolutely nothing to do with any indian citizen in any way the indian citizens notwithstanding their faith enjoy fundamental rights conferred on them by the constitution of india no statute whatsoever including the cAA can curtail or deny those rights to them the legal process of acquiring indian citizenship by any foreigner of any category through naturalization under section six of the citizenship act or through registration under section five of the act stays operational the cAA does not amend or alter it in any manner whatsoever that that path is open for for anybody any any religion hundreds of muslims migrating from these three countries have been granted indian citizenship during the last few years in 2014 after the settlement of indobangladesh boundary issues 14,864 bangladesh citizens were given indian citizenship when their enclaves were incorporated into the territory of india thousands of these foreigners muslims