Guwahati: Debabrata Saikia, Leader of the Opposition in the Assam Legislative Assembly, lodged an interlocutory application (IA) before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, challenging the Rules published by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for the implementation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.
In the IA, Saikia also contested the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, passed by the Parliament on December 12, 2019, which aimed to grant Indian citizenship to individuals who entered the country from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan until December 31, 2014.
Saikia argued that the rules introduced religion and country-based classification, which, according to him, fails the manifest arbitrariness test established in Shayara Bano vs Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1.
He asserted that such classification is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality to all persons, regardless of citizenship status.
Moreover, Saikia contended that the Act and Rules lack a determining principle and are thus manifestly arbitrary.
He pointed out discrepancies in the treatment of persecuted religious minorities from different countries, highlighting the exclusion of persecuted groups like Sri Lankan Eelam Tamils.
Saikia also emphasized the violation of the Assam Accord of 1985, which mandates the expulsion of foreigners who entered Assam after March 25, 1971.
He argued that granting citizenship to non-Muslim illegal migrants contradicts the Accord and undermines the state’s socio-economic fabric.
Furthermore, Saikia criticized the selective application of the Act and Rules, alleging discrimination against Muslim individuals in proceedings before foreign tribunals.
He expressed concern over the potential infringement of fundamental rights, citing past instances of persecution and legal action against protestors.
Saikia raised objections to the notice issued by the DCP (Crime), Guwahati, to opposition leaders, alleging it was an attack on democratic rights.
He argued that peaceful protests, such as the proposed “hartal,” are constitutionally protected forms of expression and should not be curtailed.
Saikia requested the court to defer the implementation of the impugned Act and Rules until a final decision is reached on the present writ petition, citing the potential prejudice caused by their enforcement after a prolonged period of inaction.