Constitutional Validity of CAA – Part 1

Citizenship has been a fundamental issue in tending to cultural change in the course for a long time now. The law of citizenship sets up the lawful and protected acknowledgment of a country. This paper quickly contends that the Citizenship ﴾Amendment﴿ Act, 2019, prompts the malicious results of the modifying condition of citizenship in India. This research paper give brief description about CAA and NRC and also about the historical background of CAA.  The selection of the enactment prompted various difference and analysis among the individuals of Assam.

The entry of the Act forthwith incites the inquiries. For example, is it segregation dependent on religion? “National Register of Citizens (NRC) is an official record of those people who are the legal citizens of India. This record is based on the demographic information who fit in the criteria established by the Citizenship Act, 1955 were considered citizens of India“. In accordance with CAA, NRC explicitly discriminates on the grounds of faith in which Muslims and non-Muslims are segregated into the whole Indian population. As per NRC, as his ancestors were born and live in India, a person would be asked to prove that he belongs to India. However, all non-Muslims are given citizenship by the CAA. If an individual is a Muslim, he would not be entitled to the CAA benefit. But he has no choice if a person is Muslim, but he has to prove that his ancestors were of Indian descent and if they fail to prove it, they will be left without rights.

However, it must be taken into account that records such as power bills or tac slips or birth certificates may be the eminent evidence of any individual’s proof of nationality. Nevertheless, no such evidence is taken into account under this Reform Act. Instead, a person has to prove it by tracing his ancestors’ lives.

The impact on Assam

Citizenship law characterizes a nation’s political and sacred personality. In any case, the CAA, 2019, is speaking to a more extensive partisan plan by offering inclinations to non‐Muslim’s recipients. Various referenced contentions show that the CAA, 2019, is illegal in light of the fact that it gives distinctive treatment to unlawful migrants on the grounds of their religion, counters to the nations’ majority rule standards revered in its own Constitution ad how these all affect the people of Assam and also explains the relationship between Assam accord and the citizenship act. People in Assam are attending mass rallies and public gatherings. “They say that the 2019 Citizenship ( Amendment) Act has breached Assam Accor ‘s requirements. The expulsion and detection date of immigrants / foreigners was after 24 March 1971, according to Clause 5(3) of the Assam Accord. 4 This amendment, though, now has a fresh cut-off deadline, i.e. 31 December 2014, which is a matter of protest”. “This reform in the period from eleven years to five years for non-Muslims for the purposes of residency and government facilities would curb the original Assamese population and will turn that population into a minority, thus putting an end to their culture”. Indian Citizenship is given to irregular migrants from neighbouring countries, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan, under the current Citizenship Reform Bill, which some indigenous peoples fear will make them a minority in their homelands by statute. According to them, through Taxi, the government of India seeks to wipe out their backgrounds, traditions, languages, and personalities with ill intent. Therefore, against the Bill, millions of protesters took to the streets. Protesters are asking that the changed Citizenship Amendment Bill be recalled. Many torched vehicles in “Assam, Tripura, Meghalaya, Mizoram , Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh” have disrupted rail, road, and air services. There have been numerous clashes between police and demonstrators, shootings and injuries. The Indian authorities shut down telephone and internet links in order to relieve tension and called on military forces to maintain order and enforced a curfew. “The government of India introduced the Bill without any proper consultations with concerned representatives and without a study of the impact, said Ken Timung Arleng, young Indigenous rights activist at Diphu Assam in a conversation with Cultural Survival”.The Citizenship Amendment Bill is likely to curtail the continuity of languages, cultures including economic well-being of the Indigenous Peoples of Assam and the northeast“. “If the government of India grants citizenship to foreign immigrants, irrespective of religion, race, or culture, it will cause effects not only on the political rights, but also the cultural and land rights of the majority of Indigenous populations in Assam as the law motivates more migration from foreign countries, says, D. S. Lekhthe, a lawyer from Assam”.Assamese view that the recently enacted Citizenship Amendment Bill will adversely impact the people of Assam and the northeast most“. Not just that, the Assamese have to face humongous competition before them, which inevitably leads to an increase in jobs, leading to an increase in poverty. This amendment therefore brings a new challenge in any sector, such as:-

  • External (in terms of community, wealth allocation, etc.);
    • Democratic (when it comes to contesting votes, voting rights and philosophies of the majority);
    • Administrative; (regulatory and administration in terms of law formation and policies); (in terms of vocabulary, practises, norms, history, etc.); ethnic and cultural; Economic areas (equal wealth allocation, housing, poverty eradication, etc.)


It can be inferred, then, by posing a few questions:

First, shouldn’t Hindu refugees arriving from Sri Lanka have these kinds of laws?

Secondly, if the government’s idea is to offer shelter and charity, then shouldn’t that be fairly accessible to all refugees, regardless of where they come from?

Thirdly, is it rationally correct to extend autocratic legislation to persons and then cut off internet links so that their freedom of speech and expression is wholly limited under Article 19 (Part III)?

It may also be claimed that, under Article 11 (Part II) of the Constitution of India, the government has been allowed to pass citizenship laws as it finds necessary. Article 13 (Part III) does, however, prohibit parliamentarians from making laws that derogate from the constitutional rights of Indians. And this provision is a violation of the constitution’s Part III.

This act has failed. Citizenship legislation establishes the democratic and constitutional status of a government. However, by providing preferences to non-Muslim recipients, the CAA 2019 reflects a larger sectarian agenda. Various reasons listed suggest that the 2019 CAA is illegal since it is unconstitutional. Provides undocumented refugees with different treatment on the basis of their religion, contrary to the universal values of the nations enshrined in their own Constitutions. State upheavals and social upheaval a strong dedication to constitutionalism and representative democracy motivates social outrages and the beliefs. More specific solutions, such as the codification of adequate refugee laws, are also available.

Missing in India , the government should have investigated it. Hence, this act is constitutionally not valid.

Violation of constitution

This  act violates the constitution, moreover violates the articles. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 is totally founded on the possibility of facism and radicalism. Besides, this alteration is plainly the encroachment of “Secularism and infringement of Fundamental rights (Article 14,15,16 & 21)”.


The constitutional guarantee of the right to dignity bestowed on all individuals within the territory of India is enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Over the years, several doctrinal tools have been created by the Supreme Court for deciding the negation or otherwise of the right to equality within the scope of Article 14.

The ‘classification’ or ‘nexus’ test has long been defined as the prevailing test for equality review under Article 14, and it continues to retain its significance and appeal in contemporary constitutional debate. “The essence of the test is that the spectrum of permissible distinction is circumscribed in order not to constitute segregation or class legislation. In  order  to  pass  the  test  of  ‘ reasonable classification’, the following twin requirement must be fulfilled by the enactment in question: (i)  the  classification  must be  founded  on  an  intelligible  differentia  which distinguishes  those that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (ii) the differentia must have a rational  relation  to  the  objects  sought  to  be  achieved  by  the  Act“. “Arbitrary action is described as one that is irrational and not based on sound reason or as one that is unreasonable”. “The country-based classification in the Bill also violates Article 14 as it fails the manifest arbitrariness test laid down in the Shayara Bano case.

The common link connecting the three countries in the Bill is that they are Muslim-majority countries and that they are India’s neighbours. This Act is based on a classification based on religion that contradicts Article 14 of the Constitution and that classification is not based on any intelligible differential that can justify why Muslims have been left out as beneficiaries under the act and there is no connexion between the classification and the intent of the bill to save marginalised religious minorities”. As it is not based on any determining concept, the country-based designation is manifestly subjective and contradicts Article 14. Since receiving the nod of support from both the Houses of Parliament, the Measure, whether it actually becomes the rule of the country, is responsible for being struck down by the courts for being unconstitutional and going against the fundamental framework of the Constitution.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on FacebookTwitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.

You may also like to read:

Balancing Life – Prayag Jain

Social Media and Suicide

Classification of Companies – Members

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.