Supreme Court cites CAA to uphold Indian citizenship of Hindu man-OxBig News Network

Even as more than 200 petitions challenging the validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019 remain pending before it, the Supreme Court has allowed the citizenship claim of a man who migrated from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) to India in 1969, citing the CAA.

Referring to the proviso added to Section 2(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 by the 2019 Amendment, a Bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice R Mahadevan said appellant Basudev Dutta—a Hindu—would not be treated as an ‘illegal migrant’.

Setting aside his dismissal from service by the West Bengal Government, the top court ruled that he was entitled to receive all the service benefits that are duly payable to him.

“The intention of the Central Government to award citizenship to minorities from neighbouring countries has been spelled out by way of amendment to Section 2, by introducing Proviso in Section 2 vide Amendment Act No.47 of 2019 with effect from January 10, 2020, which states that the persons like the appellant herein are not be treated as “illegal migrants”,” Justice Mahadevan said, writing the judgment for the Bench.

“Once an application has been submitted, the authority concerned has to take an appropriate decision within a reasonable time by taking into consideration all the applicable laws and the documents produced by the appellant. However, no decision has been taken against the appellant. Therefore, we answer the first contention in favour of the appellant,” the Bench said, allowing Dutta’s appeal against a Calcutta High Court order.

Passed by Parliament on December 11, 2019, and by the Centre notified on January 10, the CAA relaxes norms for grant of Indian citizenship by naturalization to Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Buddhist and Jain and Parsi victims of religious persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh who came to India before December 31, 2014.

The top court had on January 22, 2020, refused to stay the operation of the CAA and the National Population Register (NPR) and said that ultimately a five-judge Bench might have to decide these issues. Acting on a transfer petition by the Central Government, it had restrained all high courts from passing any orders on the CAA.

The top court had on March 19 asked the Centre to respond to petitions seeking a stay on the implementation of the CAA-2019 for which rules were notified earlier this year.

In its August 16, 2023, order the Calcutta High Court set aside the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal’s August 28, 2012, order allowing his petition against his dismissal from service as a Para-Medical Ophthalmic Assistant by the Director of Health Services of West Bengal on February 11, 2011, just two months before his retirement on the basis of a ‘secret report’. It was this HC order that Dutta had challenged before the top court.

However, the state government contended that except the migration certificate, Dutta did not produce any document to prove that he was an Indian national. Migration certificate did not recognise him as a citizen of India and he had to register his citizenship with the authority concerned, it submitted.

Though he claimed to have applied for a citizenship certificate and the Government of West Bengal issued no objection certificate to him with respect to his citizenship, no such document was placed on record. Describing him as a non-citizen, the state government said he cannot claim employment against the post reserved for Indian citizens.

Noting that if any document is relied upon to form the basis of enquiry, such document must be furnished to the employee, the top court set aside the HC verdict, saying, “we have no hesitation to hold that the order of termination passed against the appellant is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice and it cannot be sustained.”