The Supreme Court today adjourns the case challenging the constitutionality of the Citizenship Amendment Act to December 6, appointing two nodal counsels to coordinate and compile documents observing that "All counsel to share written submissions not exceeding three pages. Nodal counsel can designate one or two other matters as lead matters keeping in mind geographical/religious classification." 

The bench, comprising Chief Justice UU Lalit, Justices Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi, decided to treat the petition filed by the Indian Union Muslim League as the lead matter. The bench further held that "Having noted that various matters are projecting multiple issues, in our view the resolution to instant controversy can be achieved if 2-3 matters are taken as lead matters and convenience compilations are prepared well in advance. such a process will make the conduct of the proceedings easy. We have been appraised that the Writ Petition filed by Indian Union Muslim League has been completed. The petition has been filed by Advocate Pallavi Pratap. We, therefore, appoint her and Mr Kanu Agarawal as nodal counsels."

The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) in the petition states that, while they do not oppose the grant of citizenship to migrants, they are outraged by religious discrimination and illegal classification. The Act's exclusion of Muslims amounted to religious discrimination. According to the petition, the Act's religious segregation is arbitrary and violates Article 14 as well as the very concept of India as a country that treats people of all faiths equally. The Indian Constitution recognises citizenship only through birth, descent, or bona fide residence. The Act establishes religion as a criterion for citizenship. The linking of religion and citizenship runs counter to secularism, which is a fundamental tenet of the Constitution.

"CA, Act 2019 explicitly discriminates against Muslims. The Act extends the benefit to individuals belonging to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians, but excludes the same benefit to the individuals belonging to the Islam religion. Since, CA, Act 2019 discriminates based on core and intrinsic traits of the individual i.e religion of the individual, it cannot form a reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia"

The Centre submitted through an affidavit that the CAA did not infringe on any existing rights that may have existed before the amendment's enactment and that it also did not seek to affect any of the legal, democratic, or secular rights of Indian citizens.

It also claimed that the existing regime for obtaining Indian citizenship by foreigners from any country was unaffected by the CAA and remained unchanged and that legal migration from any country in the world, including the three specified countries, remained permissible. The Centre also stated that the CAA was merely a limited legislative measure with limited application that did not affect existing legal rights or citizenship regimes [falling outside the purview of specialised measures] in any way. It went on to say that the issues of citizenship entitlement and conferment, as well as related issues, fell under the purview of the competent Legislature's plenary session.

As nodal counsel, advocates Pallavi Pratap (for petitioner Indian Union Muslim League (IUML)) and Kanu Agrawal (for the Central Government) were appointed by Supreme Court. 

Case Title: Indian Union of Muslim League And Ors. v. UoI And Ors.

Citation: WP(C) No. 1470/2019