The main plank for objections against the CAA is that in excluding non-Muslims from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh from the ambit of illegal migrants and creating a special fast track for citizenship for them, it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Article 14’s protection of equal treatment applies to all ‘persons’ subject to India’s laws, not just Indian citizens, as does Article 21’s guarantee of the right to personal liberty and dignity.

Excluding people of one faith from those three countries when ostensibly helping those facing religious persecution, goes against the Constitution as even some people from that faith have faced persecution in those countries. If the basis was religious persecution, therefore, then there was reasonable cause except bias to leave them out. Additional questions of arbitrariness were also raised over the limitation of the CAA’s special treatment to those three neighbouring countries and not others.

Excluding people of one faith from those three countries when ostensibly helping those facing religious persecution, goes against the Constitution as even some people from that faith have faced persecution in those countries. If the basis was religious persecution, therefore, then there was reasonable cause except bias to leave them out. Additional questions of arbitrariness were also raised over the limitation of the CAA’s special treatment to those three neighbouring countries and not others.

Govt Notifies CAA Rules: Does the Act Violate Constitution's Article 14?

In the aftermath of the Delhi riots, this failure to act took on a fresh dimension: If the court had heard the matter as scheduled, if it had demonstrated some interest in addressing the concerns of all those who were opposed to the CAA (and those opposed to them), could the riots have been avoided?

But of course the first question to be asked here is how significant the court’s failure to list the matter was.

One Year of CAA: In its Approach to CAA Cases, the SC Has Failed its Own Standards

“A judge shall ensure that his or her conduct is above reproach in the view of a reasonable observer.”

Clause 3.1 of the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct 2002

This principle of the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, is worth paying attention to when we consider the way in which the Supreme Court of India has dealt with one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in the history of India: the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019, commonly known as the CAA.

Please note the words “above reproach” and “reasonable observer.” The touchstone of testing the conduct of a Judge is the viewpoint of a reasonable observer – not just in some whimsical ideal, but in the code of conduct adopted by the higher judiciary in India for two decades now.

BECOME A MEMBER

In Its Approach to CAA Cases, the SC Has Failed its Own Standards

SC has not only failed to list the cases since January, it also inexplicably ignored the situation on the ground.

Read Latest News and Breaking News at The Quint, browse for more from opinion

Topics: CAA NRC CAA Anniversary CAA Lest We Forget