The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the response of the Central government on petitions challenging the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 and the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra directed the Centre to file a counter affidavit and adjourned the matter till April 9.
The Apex Court refused to pass any interim order staying the grant of citizenship till then. It also did not accede to the request to pass an order making the grant of citizenship subject to the outcome of the case.
Appearing for the Central government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that there were 236 petitions challenging the CAA and that after the rules came, 20 IAs have been filed for stay.
He said he needed time to collate everything and file a reply. The SG said he received three IAs late last night, adding that none of the petitioners as such were affected parties.
The SG contended that the new law did not take away the citizenship of anyone. He said the Act would only provide citizenship to those who have migrated for the reasons mentioned in the Act.
The Apex Court then responded that it was subject to merit.
No new person was being given citizenship, said the SG, referring to the 2014 cut-off date.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing on behalf of a petitioner, submitted that if the SG was making a statement that no one will be given citizenship during the pendency, it can be recorded.
The SG said that he was not willing to say that.
The Apex Court then said that the Union government was entitled to seek little time to file a counter.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Central government initially sought four weeks to file its response to the pleas.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, opposed the same.
He also asked what was the sudden urgency to notify the rules nearly four years after the CAA was passed.
The SG argued that the petitioners were seeking a stay on statutory rules.
Sibal responded that there was no rejection of stay earlier at all. Why did the Union wait for more than four years and three months, he asked.
The SG assured that whether the citizenship was granted or not, it would not affect the petitioners.
Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar said that there was case of a Hindu from Balochistan. If citizenship was granted then how ere they affected.
Jaisung responded that they will get the right to vote. She said they can argue on merits right now, and pressed for an interim stay.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal too said that if something happens, they will approach the Court.