CAA Challenge: Supreme Court Hearing Begins May 5; Petitions Concerning Assam, Tripura To Be Heard Separately

Nearly 6 years after the introduction of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA), the Supreme Court today ordered that the batch of petitions filed before it challenging the validity of the amendment will be heard in May.

CAA, which was passed on December 12, 2019, amends Section 2 of the Citizenship Act of 1955 which defines “illegal migrants”. Persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian communities from the neighboring 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. Consequently, over 200 petitions were filed challenging the introduction of the Amendment Act in 2019, which 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.

Today, when the batch of petitions were taken up by a CJI Surya Kant led bench, court was informed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that as per an order from January 2020, court had directed that issue pertaining to Assam and Tripura be heard separately.

"First we can hear the general matter and then followed by Assam and Tripura," CJI Kant said in response.

Accordingly, the bench also comprising Justices Bagchi and Pancholi ordered: "There are two sets of cases assailing constitutionality of Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. Initially by an order dated 22nd Jan 2020, these matters were categorized in two groups. We find that it will convenient that a separate hearing is granted pertaining to matters on Assam and Tripura. Consequently, the learned nodal counsels will identify the matters falling in the two groups and a list will be submitted to the Registry. The Registry shall segregate the matters and the same shall be listed for hearing in the week commencing 5th May 2026. The petitioners shall be heard on 5th May and half day of 6th May. The other half of 6th May, and 7th may will be the respondents. Rejoinder arguments will be heard on 12th May".

Notably, in March 2024 even after persistent requests made for stay on the grant of citizenship under the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, the Supreme Court had refused to pass any such orders. "They don't even have the infrastructure in place..", former CJI DY Chandrachud had observed, adding that grant of citizenship would be dependent on the outcome of this case.

Indian Union Muslim League had approached the Supreme Court of India seeking a stay on the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Rules, 2024. Court has further been asked to stay the continued operation of the Impugned provisions of Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019; and Citizenship Amendment Rules 2024, which would result in valuable rights being created and citizenship being granted to persons belonging to only certain religions, thereby resulting in a fait accompli situation.

In 2022, Supreme Court had referred the pleas challenging the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 to a three-judge bench.

Before the Supreme Court, it is the Central government's stand that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 is a specific amendment which seeks to tackle persecution of the minorities on the ground of religion in specified countries.

"...the CAA is a specific amendment which seeks to tackle a specific problem prevalent in the specified countries i.e. persecution on the ground of religion in light of the undisputable theocratic constitutional position in the specified countries, the systematic functioning of such States and the perception of fear that may be prevalent amongst minorities as per the de facto situation in the said countries", court was told in 2022 by way of an affidavit.

Supreme Court has been further informed that the Parliament, after taking cognizance of the said issues over the course of the past seven decades and having taken into consideration the acknowledged class of minorities in three specific countries, has enacted the CAA. Arguing that immigration policy and citizenship in particular, is the executive policy of the sovereign manifested by competent legislation, the Supreme Court is informed that an incident of sovereignty belonging to a duly constituted Nation-State and immigration policy, which has an impact on the foreign policy of a State and by extension, affects the security apparatus of the State and would fall squarely within the domain of the Parliament.

Central government has further submitted that the constitutionality of such a legislative measure ought to be tested within the legislative domain and cannot be conflated to extend beyond that object.

Filed through Sumant Singh, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, the affidavit submitted that CAA is a benign piece of legislation which seeks to provide a relaxation, in the nature of an amnesty, to specific communities from the specified countries with a clear cut-off date.

Supreme Court has been informed that legal migration, on the basis of valid documents and visa, continues to be permissible from all countries of the world including from the three specified countries. On the challenge to CAA for violating Article 14, the affidavit submitted that classification under the impugned legislation is not novel and there are numerous Central legislations which are limited in their territorial application.

Case Title: INDIAN UNION OF MUSLIM LEAGUE vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Pancholi

Hearing Date: February 19, 2026