Kerala Challenges Constitutionality Of CAA – Economics – Free PDF Download

 CURRENT AFFAIR

• Kerala has become the first state to move the Supreme Court challenging the Citizenship (Amendment) Act,  2019 – CAA, 2019.

TOPIC

• GS Paper 2
• Indian Constitution
• Centre-State relations
• Judiciary

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act,  2019

• It seeks to provide citizenship to illegal migrants from Buddhist, Hindu, Sikhs, Jain, Parsi and Christian  faiths, who have come to India from the neighbouring  countries of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh, on  or before 31st December, 2014.

Highlights of the suit

• The suit has been filed under Article 131 of the
• Under Article 131, the Supreme Court has “original” jurisdiction in disputes between States or the Centre  and State(s). The Article allows the court to directly  take cognisance of such a dispute.
• Kerala has said in its suit that it would be compelled under Article 256 to comply with the CAA, which it  considers manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational  and violative of fundamental rights.
• Article 256 of the Constitution states that the executive power of every State shall be so exercised as  to ensure compliance with the laws made by 
• Thus, there exists a dispute, involving questions of law and fact, between the State of Kerala and the Union of
• The Kerala Government has asked for the law to be declared unconstitutional and in violation of:
• Article 14 (equality before law),
• Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) and
• Article 25 (freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion).

Others

• It has also sought directions to declare the Passport (Entry into India) Amendment Rules, 2015, and  Foreigners (Amendment) Order, 2015, to be “ultra vires  the Constitution of India and to be void”.

Why?

• The amendments also violate India’s international obligations under:
• Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which provides that everyone has the right to  seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from  persecution).
• Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which provides that everyone has the right to a  nationality and that no one shall be arbitrarily  deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to  change his nationality) and
• Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which provides that all persons are  equal before the law, that all persons are entitled  without any discrimination to the equal protection of  the law and that the law shall prohibit any  discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and  effective protection against discrimination on any  ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,  political or other opinion, national or social origin,  property, birth or other status).

Article 131 of the Constitution

• The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute:
• between the Government of India and one or more States; or
• between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the  other; or
• between two or more States.

Conditions

• The dispute must involve a question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right
• Any suit brought before the Supreme Court by a private citizen against the Centre or a state cannot be  entertained under this.

Original jurisdiction

• The power to hear a case for the first time, as opposed to appellate jurisdiction, in which the court reviews  the decision of a lower court.

Difference from Article 32

• Article 32 gives the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for the violation of FRs.
• The jurisdiction in Article 131 is exclusive, meaning it is only the Supreme Court which has this authority.
• Under Article 226, the High Courts too have the power to issue writs, directions

Supreme Court’s Stand on Article  131

• There have been two conflicting judgments from the Supreme Court on whether a State can file an original  suit under Article 131 to challenge the constitutionality  of a central law.
• The first judgment reported in 2012 – State of Madhya Pradesh vs Union of India – held that States cannot challenge a central law under Article 131.
• The second judgment – State of Jharkhand Vs State of Bihar – took the opposite view in 2015 and referred the question of law to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court  for final determination.

Latest Burning Issues | Free PDF

Sharing is caring!