Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The central government announced the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), five years after it was passed by the parliament. The notification issued by the government will enable religiously persecuted minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladeshwho have entered India on or before December 31, 2014. This decision of the government has sparked both celebrations as well as outrage from a variety of sources. The chief ministers of Kerala, West Bengal, and Tamil Nadu have also stated that they would not permit the act to be implemented in their states and have also alleged the statute to be discriminatory. 

Following the passage of the CAA in the year 2019, there was a significant outpouring of protest, and some state legislatures have also introduced motions and passed resolutions to prevent the implementation of this law in their respective states. The question that is of the utmost importance in this context is whether or not the state governments can do so, or whether these remarks are nothing more than political gimmicks that they have made to express their opposition to the law that was passed by the central government. 

Regarding this matter, putting away political partisan viewpoints, acts of defiance, and retaliation, the constitutional perspective on these acts of defiance appears to be an important question that needs to be answered to arrive at a logical conclusion regarding the outcome that these legislations might experience.

According to the constitutional framework of our nation and the powers derived from Entry 17 of the Seventh Schedule of the constitution, the central government has the sole authority and right when it comes to making laws on “Citizenship, naturalization and aliens” and since the fact is that citizenship falls within the purview of the Union List the Parliament of India is the exclusive body with the jurisdiction to enact laws concerning it. 

Furthermore, Article 246 of the Constitution establishes a clear distinction between the legislative powers held by the Parliament and those held by the state legislatures. The subjects that are included on the Union List, such as citizenship in the present case, fall completely under the purview of the Parliament of India, whilst the matters that are included on the State List are under the authority of the state legislatures. 

Furthermore, Article 256 of the Constitution discusses the "Obligation of States and the Union," which explains the obligations that both the states and the Union have to ensure that laws are followed. In essence, it emphasizes that the executive power of each state should be applied in a manner that ensures obedience to laws that have been established by the Parliament. 
In addition, it gives the Union the authority to give directives to a state if it determines that doing so is required to guarantee that the laws are followed. This indicates that the central government has the authority to interfere and give directives to fix the problem if it is of the opinion that a state is not adequately implementing a particular law that the parliament has passed. So, as stipulated in Article 256 of the Constitution of India, the states are bound to put into effect the laws that have been made by the central government. Additionally, Article 257(1) provides further elaboration on this topic by stating that state governments are prohibited from exercising their executive powers in a manner that hinders or undermines the exercise of executive powers by the Union government. To put it another way, this clause prohibits the states from taking actions or making choices that would impede the ability of the central government to carry out its tasks outlined specifically for them by the Constitution.

Hence, the responsibility of granting citizenship lies with the parliament. Although the state governments have passed resolutions to prevent its implementation, these resolutions will not have any effect when it comes to the implementation of the statute and if any state denies to comply with this, it will be nothing more than an insult to the constitution itself.