Read Time: 08 minutes
Having noted that there are various matter projecting multiple issues, in our view the resolution to the issue can be easily achieved if 2-3 matters are taken as lead matters, Court opined
While deciding on a batch of over 200 petitions challenging the validity and constitutionality of Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, a bench of CJI U.U. Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, gave more time to the counsels to file submissions and tag a matter as the lead matter. Court listed the matter for further hearing before appropriate court on December 6.
The bench also sought responses from the States of Assam and Tripura within 2 weeks.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta apprised the Court with the Centre's response on the issue. It was the Centre's stand that CAA does not impinge on any existing right of a citizen. It was submitted that the "CAA is a benign piece of legislation which seeks to provide a relaxation, in the nature of an amnesty...". SG Mehta further submitted "that apart from the urgency, I understand the sensitivity with which they have approached". And provided two broad categories under which the issues are framed in the matter.
Senior Counsel, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, requested the Court inter alia to designate one matter as the lead matter, grant a time frame for submissions to be made, and decide a deadline for the issue. He stated, "Let us a fix a very strict schedule".
Court then noted that either they decide it today or they let the subsequent bench to decide over. As there are certain matters that will be projected onto another.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaisingh submitted before the Court that, "We all agree that there are bunch of matters connected to the main challenge and another challenge to Assam. But there is a definite overlap". Therefore requested the Court to take Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal’s matter as the lead.
Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay appeared before the Court, supporting CAA, and requested the Court to tag his matter along with the petitions, as his matter was de de-tagged. Court questioned the possibility of the matter being de-tagged, to which he submitted the judicial order mandating it.
The bench then appointed Advocate-on-Record Pallavi Pratap as the Nodal Counsel, and Advocate Kanu Agarwal to file necessary documents for compilation to be shared (in digitised mode) with all the Counsels who appeared.
Court thus opined, "In keeping with the directions of this Court, right at the outset SG Mehta has submitted that, he may be given some additional time to compile directions issued by this Court. He further submitted that responses by Assam and Tripura have not been filed, therefore short accommodation may be granted. Having noted that there are various matter projecting multiple issues, in our view the resolution to the issue can be easily achieved if 2-3 matters are taken as lead matters. To make the process convenient and easy. It is submitted that theIndian Muslim League’s submissions in the plea is completed and pleadings have been filed. After a common compilation is done, the volumes of compilation to be shared with all Counsels who appeared. The Nodal Counsel may also designate other 1-2 matters as lead matters on the basis of geographical and religion classification and other issues".
Background: Last month, CJI UU Lalit had remarked that he would refer the pleas challenging the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 to a three-judge bench.
Court had also issued a bunch of directions for completion of procedural formalities in the case.
Over 200 petitions that were filed after the introduction of the Amendment Act in 2019, were taken up by the Supreme Court. Notices in the pleas were issued in January 2020, but the matter could not be taken up for hearing.
CAA, which was passed on December 12, 2019, amends Section 2 of the Citizenship Act of 1955 which defines “illegal migrants”. Now, persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian communities from the neighbouring countries of Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, shall not be treated as “illegal migrants” and shall be eligible to apply for citizenship under the 1955 Act.
Case Title: INDIAN UNION OF MUSLIM LEAGUE AND ORS vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Please Login or Register
