Jairam Ramesh moves SC against Citizenship Amendment Act

Jairam Ramesh moves SC against Citizenship Amendment Act

New Delhi, Dec 13 Congress leader Jairam Ramesh on Friday moved the Supreme Court challenging validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act, alleging that it is a brazen attack on the core fundamental rights envisaged under the Constitution.

The petition said the Act promotes rather than checks illegal migration and is inextricably intertwined with the bizarre concept of a national National Register of Citizens, “as it does not even attempt to address the humanitarian and logistical issues of excluding millions and is clueless as to where to house them, where to deport them and how to deal with them.”

Ramesh claims the Act is manifestly violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution and contrary to the law laid down by the apex court, and also violates the Assam Accord and international covenants.

The petition sought direction declaring and quashing the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 as unconstitutional, null and void and ultra vires. The petition emphasised that Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 violates the international law and obligation approved and agreed by India under international covenants. A dozen pleas have been filed in the apex court challenging the Act.

The petition contends that the Act follows the exercise of National Register of Citizens in Assam, which backfired and the same is evident from the fact that the government is yet to publish the religion-wise breakdown of those 19 lakh excluded but the Citizenship Amendment (Section 6B) Act seeks to abate proceedings against the Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis, Jains, Buddhists and Christians in that list (singling out only a particular religion as migrants).

“There is an audacious and dishonest attempt to ‘de-hyphenate’ the Citizenship Amendment Act and the exercise of initiating the National Register of Citizens for the entire country, i.e., the Citizenship Amendment Act is a perfect example of the maxim ‘Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc’ – After it, therefore because of it,” said the petition.