In an unprecedented intervention, the UN Human Rights Chief has moved the Supreme Court against the Citizenship Amendment Act(CAA), drawing a strong condemnation from India.
The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) on Tuesday said thatno foreign party has “any locus standi” on matters relating to itssovereignty.
The Apex Court is currently hearing a batch of petitionschallenging the constitutional validity
of the amended citizenship law and had on December 18 soughtthe response of the Centre.
In its 12-page intervention application, the Office of theUnited Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights(OHCHR) sought to “assistthe Court, in examining the compatibility of the CAA with India’s Constitution,in light of India’s obligations under the international human rights law.”
The OHCHR welcomed as commendable the “stated purposeof the CAA” to protect “some persons from persecution on religiousgrounds”, but raised the issue of exclusion of various sects of persecutedMuslims. Asked whether the OHCHRcan approach the Supreme Court, a government official familiar with the mattersaid it was for the Apex Court to take a decision.
In response to queries, MEA Spokesperson Raveesh Kumar saidIndia’s Permanent Mission in Geneva was informed on Monday evening by MichelleBachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, that her office has filedan intervention application in the Supreme Court on the CAA. “The CAA is an internal matter of Indiaand concerns the sovereign right of the Indian Parliament to make laws. Westrongly believe that no foreign party has any locus standi on issuespertaining to India’s sovereignty,” Kumar said.
“India is clear that the CAA is constitutionally valid andcomplies with all requirements of its constitutional values,” he said.
“It is reflective of our long standing nationalcommitment in respect of human rights issues arising from the tragedy of thePartition of India,” he added.
“India is a democratic country governed by the rule oflaw. We all have utmost respect for and full trust in our independentjudiciary. We are confident that our sound and legally sustainable positionwill be vindicated by the Supreme Court,” he said.
The CAA, which was notified on January 10, grants Indiancitizenship to non-Muslim minorities — Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi andChristian — who migrated to India from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladeshtill December 31, 2014, following persecution over their faith.
The country has witnessed protests in the last two monthsover the new law with the opposition parties and rights groups terming it asviolative of founding principles of the Constitution.
Rejecting the criticism, the government has been accusingthe opposition parties of misleading people on the law for political gains.
BJP spokesperson Baijayant Panda slammed the UN body for itsmove. In a tweet, Panda said the OHCHR has “noshame” in opposing the CAA when itwas aimed at providing help to persecuted minorities. Senior Congress leader Ahmed Patel attacked the Modigovernment over the move by the OHCHR, saying it is an “unwarrantedinterference”, but it is the Centre that is to be blamed for the”mess”. “No doubtthat UN’s intervening application is a case of unwarranted interference in ourmatters,” Patel said in a tweet.
“But who is to blame for this mess? The Government ofIndia for creating a window for such interference by enacting a law whichbreaches global standards on human rights,” the AICC treasurer said.
In its application, the OHCHR said, “The CAA canpotentially benefit thousands of migrants in an irregular situation, includingrefugees, who might otherwise face obstacles in obtaining protection frompersecution in their countries of origin including through the grant ofcitizenship. This is a commendable purpose.”
It added however that there exist “religious minoritiesin these countries, especially of the Muslim faith, including Ahmadia, Hazaraand Shia Muslims whose situations would warrant protection on the same basis asthat provided in the preferential treatment proposed by the CAA”.
The plea maintained that all migrants regardless of theirrace, ethnicity, religion, nationality or immigration status enjoy human rightsand are entitled to protection.
The OHCHR said the CAA raised important issues with respectto international human rights law and its application to migrants, includingrefugees.
The CAA also raises other issues “including itscompatibility in relation to the right to equality before the law and nondiscrimination on nationality grounds under India’s human rightsobligations”, the plea said.
Referring to several international covenants, it said Indiahas “championed the right to equal protection of the law” and theright to equality before the law.
“Without prejudice to the power of States to establishmigration policies as a manifestation of their sovereignty, including measuresin favour of migrants that may be subject to persecution and other serioushuman rights violations/ irreparable harm in their countries of origin orprevious residence, States must ensure migration governance measures are inaccordance with international human rights law, including the right to equalitybefore the law, equal protection of the law …,” it said.
The plea urged the top court to take into account theinternational human rights law, norms and standards, in the proceedings relatedto CAA and termed it “important” for India and its diversecommunities which have been welcomed by the State.