EVALUATING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT, 2019: USING RULES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

 The author of this blog is Indraneel Chakraborty  B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) - 2nd Year student of School of Law, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies (UPES), Dehradun

Introduction

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, hereinafter referred to as ‘CAA’ was enacted by the Parliament of India on the 12th of December, 2019. It is an amending statute that was constructed to amend the Citizenship Act of 1955 and it paves the pathway for obtaining Indian citizenship for unlawful/illegal migrants of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, Jain, and Parsi religious minorities, who fled due to persecution from our neighboring nation’s viz. Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh on/before December 2014. 

The Citizenship Act of 1955 considered a person eligible for Indian citizenship if the person has resided in India (or he has been in service for the Central Government of India) for at least 11 years (citizenship by Naturalization). The amending statute (CAA) decreased that period to 5 years from these three neighboring nations for the people of these 6 aforementioned religious communities. 

The Reason for the Upheaval

 CAA was introduced by the Govt. of India to help the refugees from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan in ostensibly fleeing religious persecution. However, it was objected that “Muslims” had been deliberately excluded from the 6 religious minorities whose immigrants will be benefited under the provisions of CAA. This conspicuous exclusion of the Muslim religious minority from the purview of the Citizenship Amendment Act evoked widespread condemnation. 

Determining the Constitutionality of CAA using Rules of Statutory Interpretation

Using the Literal Rule of Interpretation

The Literal Rule of Interpretation, also known as the Plain Meaning Rule, states that the cardinal rule of interpreting a statute is to construe its provisions as it is, i.e. to go by its natural and ordinary meaning. According to this rule, the words in an enactment possess their natural significance and the construction of an act depends solely on its plain wording. This rule leaves no ambit or possibility of any additions or substitutions for interpretation.

Therefore, if we analyze the provisions of CAA using the Literal Rule of Interpretation, we will find that the act applies solely to the 6 religious minorities mentioned in Section 2(1)(b) of the Act. Hence, if we go by the Literal Rule of Interpretation, we can see that the Muslim religious minority is blatantly excluded from the ambit of the act. Now let us determine the constitutional validity of CAA under the Literal Rule of Interpretation. The prime reason that would belie any opposition to the constitutionality of CAA interpreted even under the Literal Rule of Interpretation is that it concerns foreigners (aliens) rather than the Indian citizens and the exclusive legislative authority vis-à-vis ‘foreign jurisdiction’, ‘extradition’, ‘citizenship, naturalization’ and ‘admission into and emigration and expulsion from India’ is bestowed upon the Parliament[1]. Therefore, in the case of aliens; the Constitutional provisions of undermining the ‘intelligible differentia’ conjoined with the doctrine of a ‘rational nexus’ aren’t mandatory to be incorporated at all. The Republic of India, like any other established Sovereign authority, owns the supreme privilege to allow/refuse entry or to expel any non-citizen/alien. 

Hence, the meager chance that a law might be exploited doesn’t render it unconstitutional ex facie and therefore, under-inclusivity of a statute is not a valid ground for challenging its constitutionality. Therefore, any such classification doesn’t necessarily need to be all-welcoming and morally unadulterated; the Legislature is impeccably empowered to distinguish and segregate between the dissimilar and distinct categories/batches/ groups, etc.[2]

Using the Golden Rule of Interpretation

The Golden Rule of Interpretation (The British Rule) is a rule of statutory interpretation that is pertinent when the application of the Literal Rule leads to an ambiguous or absurd result that is lawfully erroneous. This rule permits a jurist to deviate from a word’s general meaning to evade from the flawed result. This rule is usually applied in a narrower sense than the Literal Rule specifically when there is some ambiguity between the words themselves.

Determining the Constitutionality of CAA using the Golden Rule of Interpretation, we will obtain an almost identical conclusion as the Literal Rule scenario. ‘Any person’ under section 2, sub-section (1), in clause (b) of CAA must cover ‘aliens’ as well according to the Golden Rule as well as the universal applicability of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, it must be specified that a vital distinction here would be that, such rights would pertain only to the persons who have entered the territory of India with due accordance to law[3]. As mentioned previously, any reasonable classification would have to meet two conditions:

1. It must be established on an Intelligible Differentia that separates the people being classified with the people being excluded.
2. The differentia must have a Rational Nexus to the intent with which the statute was constructed.

The CAA satisfies both these pretexts. First, the persecuted religious minorities are visibly distinguished from the rest of the Muslim citizens of the three Muslim-majority nations. Secondly, this differentia is discernibly associated with the objective of the CAA which pursues to grant such minorities the rights of citizenship in a secular nation. The ratio decidendi of excluding Ahmadiyyas, Hazaras & Shias (all Muslims) is correspondingly defensible since part of the Muslim majority being persecuted within an officially declared Islamic nation is an intrinsic matter of the state.[4]Hence, the CAA proves to be potent even when interpreted under the Golden Rule of Statutory Interpretation to determine its constitutional congruency.

 Using the Mischief Rule of Interpretation (Purposive Approach)

The Mischief Rule of statutory interpretation is a rule which attempts to determine the intention of the law-makers. Its key objective is to determine the “mischief (the defect)” which the statute in question seeks to resolve. Apart from the words used in the statute, this rule also pays close attention to the history and backdrop of the statute and the reasons which lead to its fabrication.

Evaluating the Constitutionality of CAA under this rule, we can see that the object of this act is to aid so many immigrants who have been illegally residing in the country to apply for legitimate citizenship at last. This is the ‘defect’ which the statute ultimately seeks to resolve. Hence, it will not only grant citizenship to such refuges but will also empower them by uplifting their socio-economic status in society. When any statute is construed, there is always a presumption in favor of its constitutionality, which is – the Legislature understands and appropriately comprehends the needs of the people, and that the laws enacted are focused on redressal of the issues manifested by experience.

Therefore, any form of discrimination is always based on equitable grounds. To support this presumption, the Judiciary may take into account the history and figurative backdrop of the state of facts before the legislation. The Legislature acting within its domain as per the due procedure established by law is not bound to encompass its jurisdiction to everyone. It is unrestricted to recognize the degrees of harm and restrain its laws where the need is coherent[5]. The CAA does not violate any rights of those who assail the law and no immigrant has the right to claim Indian citizenship or to plead for a convenient way of acquiring it. There is more rhetoric than lawful reasoning in the contention that the statute is contrary to secularism, and thus infringes the Basic Structure of the Constitution. A law is invalidated only when it is devoid of legislative competence or when it is violative of the constitutional provisions. No such ground exists in this case [6]. 

Therefore, it is completely safe to deduce under the Mischief Rule of Statutory Interpretation that CAA is thoroughly valid and justifiable since the intent of the legislators is to aid the persecuted religious minorities and there has been no exploitation of the true spirit of our Indian Constitution whatsoever. 

Conclusion

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 stands the test of constitutionality on all challenged grounds and it is apparent that it is neither violative of any constitutional provision and nor is it prejudiced towards any particular religion or sect. The exclusion of Muslims, though it might look un-secular at first glance is simply because the likelihood of Muslims facing persecution in these Muslim-majority nations is low and the classification is an internal subject-matter of the Republic of India. The legislation does not abuse any legislative power bestowed upon the Parliament. Therefore, it is beneficial for all citizens to analyze the true intention of the Parliament for enacting this law and to reasonably welcome this amendment rather than retaliating and violently protesting against it. Such hostile and delinquent affairs harm the nation’s internal atmosphere of peace, harmony, and fraternity among the citizens.

  [1] Ivan and Akshat Bajpai, Why Supreme Court of India won’t strike down Modi govt’s Citizenship Amendment Act, The Print, available at https://theprint.in/opinion/why-supreme-court-of-india-wont-strike-down-modi-govts-citizenship-amendment-act/342781/ (last visited on May 05, 2020)

[2] Ibid.

[3] Aruna Natarajan, Explained: Should you read the CAA in conjunction with the proposed NRC?, Citizen Matters, available at https://citizenmatters.in/faq-on-citizenship-amendment-act-and-nrc-connection-14928 (last visited on May 07, 2020)

[4] Saroj Chadha, CAA & Article 14 of Indian Constitution, The Times of India, available at https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/blunt-frank/caa-article-14-of-indian-constitution/ (last visited on May 06, 2020)

[5] V. Sudhish Pai, Why CAA is not against the Constitution, The New Indian Express, available at https://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/2019/dec/26/why-caa-is-not-against-the-constitution-2081028.html (last visited on May 07, 2020)

[6] Ibid.