1.

POLITY & GOVERNANCE

1.1. CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT
Why in News?
Link between CAA and NRC/NRIC
Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019 was recently According to Section 14A of the Citizenship Act, 1955
enacted by the Parliament that seeks to amend the (inserted by Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003):
Citizenship Act, 1955. • The Central Government may compulsorily
Background register every citizen of India and issue national
identity card to him.
• Article 11 of Indian constitution empowers • The Central Government may maintain a National
Parliament to make any provision with respect to the Register of Indian Citizens (NRIC) and for that
acquisition and termination of citizenship and all purpose establish a National Registration
other matters relating to citizenship. Authority.
• Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 provided that • Registrar General, India, appointed under
Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 shall
‘illegal migrants’ will not be eligible to apply for
act as the National Registration Authority and he
citizenship by either registration or naturalisation. shall function as the Registrar General of Citizen
• Section 2(1)(b) of Citizenship Act, 1955 defines illegal Registration.
migrant as a foreigner who: • To implement CAA, citizens and illegal migrants
o enters the country without valid travel have to be identified. So, a National Register of
documents, like a passport and visa or Indian Citizens (NRIC) is the necessary first step.
o enters with valid documents, but stays beyond Link between NRC and NPR
the permitted time period.
• The National Population Register (NPR) is a list of
• However, considering the plight of minorities in “usual residents of the country”. A “usual resident
these countries, some concessions have been given of the country” is one who has been residing in a
in recent times, such as: local area for at least the last six months or
o Foreigners Act, 1946 (regulates the entry and intends to stay in a particular location for the next
departure of foreigners in India) and the six months. So, NPR may have foreigners as well.
Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 (mandates • However, after a list of residents is created, if a
foreigners to carry passport) empower the nationwide NRC is needed, it could be done by
central government to imprison or deport illegal verifying the citizens from that list. So, a NRC, if
migrants. undertaken, would flow out of NPR.
✓ In 2015 and 2016, two notifications were issued by Central government exempting certain groups of
illegal migrants from provisions of the 1946 and the 1920 Acts. These groups are Hindus, Sikhs,
Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, who arrived in
India on or before December 31, 2014. This implies that these groups of illegal migrants will not be
deported or imprisoned for being in India without valid documents.
o A Citizenship Amendment Bill was introduced in Parliament in 2016 but the bill got lapsed.
Key provisions of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019
• The amendment provides that illegal migrants who fulfil four conditions will not be treated as illegal
migrants under the Act. The conditions are:
o they are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis or Christians
o they are from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan
o they entered India on or before December 31, 2014they are not in certain tribal areas of Assam,
Meghalaya, Mizoram, or Tripura included in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, or areas under the
“Inner Line” permit, i.e., Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and Nagaland.
✓ These tribal areas include Karbi Anglong (in Assam), Garo Hills (in Meghalaya), Chakma District (in
Mizoram), and Tripura Tribal Areas District.
• All legal proceedings against above category of migrants in respect of their illegal migration or citizenship
will be closed.
• The period of naturalisation has been reduced from 11 years to 5 years for above category of migrants.

4 www.visionias.in ©Vision IAS

 o The 1955 Act allows a person to apply for citizenship by naturalisation, if the person meets certain
qualifications. One of the qualifications is that the person must have resided in India or been in central
government service for the last 12 months and at least 11 years of the preceding 14 years.
• Grounds for cancelling OCI registration: The amendment provides that the central government may cancel
registration of OCIs, if the OCI has violated Citizenship Act or any other law so notified by the central
government. Also, the cardholder has to be given an opportunity to be heard.
o The Act provides that the central government may cancel registration of OCIs on five grounds including
registration through fraud, showing disaffection to the Constitution, engaging with the enemy during
war, necessity in the interest of sovereignty of India, security of state or public interest, or if within five
years of registration the OCI has been sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more.
Arguments in favour of the Amendment Act
• Religious persecution- Nehru-Liaquat pact, also known as the Delhi Pact, signed in 1950, sought to provide
certain safeguards and rights to religious minorities like unrecognition of forced conversions and returning of
abducted women and looted property etc.
o However, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh have a state religion with discriminatory blasphemy
laws, religious violence and forced conversions which has resulted in religious persecution of minority
groups.
o For instance, in 1951, the Non-Muslim minorities population 23.20% in Bangladesh which is around 9.6%
in 2011.
• Illegal immigration from neighboring countries has been a contentious issue for decades. E.g. During the 6-
year long agitation that started in 1979 in Assam, the protestors demanded the identification and
deportation of all illegal foreigners – predominantly Bangladeshi immigrants. This act would differentiate
between illegal immigrants and persecuted communities seeking refuge.
Arguments against the Amendment Act
• Classification of countries: It is not clear why migrants from these countries are differentiated from migrants
from other neighboring countries such as Sri Lanka (Buddhism is the state religion) and Myanmar (primacy to
Buddhism).
o Sri Lanka has had a history of persecution of a linguistic minority in the country, the Tamil Eelams.
o Myanmar has had a history of persecution of a religious minority, the Rohingya Muslims.
• Classification of minority communities: The amendment simply mentions the 6 ‘minority communities’ and
there is no mention of ‘persecuted minorities’ or ‘religious persecution.’ So, ideally it should not differentiate
between religious persecution and political persecution. Moreover, exclusion of Muslims, Jews and Atheists
from CAA is said to be violation of Article 14 of the constitution. For example:
o Persecution of co-religionists like Shias, Hazaras or Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan (who are considered
non-Muslims in that country).
o The murder of atheists in Bangladesh has also been noticed.
• Classification based on date of entry: CAA also offers differential treatment to migrants based on their date
of entry into India, i.e., whether they entered India before or after December 31, 2014.
• Against the letter and spirit of Assam Accord: The Assam accord put the date of detection and deportation
of foreigners as March 25 1971, whereas, for other states, it was 1951. CAA extends the cut-off date for NRC
from 25th March 1971 to 31st Dec 2014. CAA extends the cut-off date for NRC from 25th March 1971 to 31st
Dec 2014.
• Cancellation of OCI registration: giving the central government the power to prescribe the list of laws whose
violation result in cancellation of OCI registration, may amount to an excessive delegation of powers by the
legislature.
• Implication on external relations:
o The amendment implies that religious persecution of the Hindu minority in Bangladesh as one of the
reasons for the amendment and also implies that Muslim migrants from Bangladesh will be “thrown
out”. This invites trouble from Bangladesh with bearing on bilateral issues.
o India’s strong commitment to civic nationalism and religious pluralism, have been important pillars on
which India’s strategic partnerships with the US and the West have been built, which may be imperiled.

5 www.visionias.in ©Vision IAS

Conclusion
• Indian democracy is based on the concept of welfare and secular state and a progressive constitution where
Article 21 provides the Right of a dignified life. So, it becomes a moral obligation of the state to allay the
fears of minority communities, if any. Hence, the classification done in CAA on the basis of country of origin
and religious minorities can be made more inclusive.
• Moreover, India should enact a refugee law wherein the right to live a life without fear or confinement can
be protected. If the fear is that people may seek permanent asylum, the UNHCR can work with them
officially for their voluntary repatriation, and without rendering long-term refugees ineligible for applying for
citizenship.
Note: For more details on NPR, please refer to VisionIAS Current Affairs-September 2019 edition.

1.2. CREAMY LAYER CRITERIA FOR SC/ST IN PROMOTIONS

Why in News?
Creamy Layer
The Central Government has demanded for a review of 2018 • The concept has its genesis in the Indira
Supreme Court Verdict in Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Gupta Sawhney Case (1992). Supreme Court asked
Case, related to reservations in promotions for SC/ST. the Government to define the criteria by
fixation of income, property or status.
Background • Currently creamy layer criteria is applicable
• M. Nagaraj vs Union of India Case (2006) to Other backward classes (OBCs) in
reservation.
o The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity
• At present, Group A and Group B officers of
of reservations for SCs and STs to include promotions
both Central and State Government,
with three conditions: Employees of Armed Forces and PSUs along
✓ quantifiable data on the backwardness of with people earning more than 8 lakh per
Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) annum come under the purview of Creamy
✓ the facts about their inadequate representation layer.
✓ the overall administrative efficiency
• The Centre approached supreme Court that the verdict in the M Nagraj case put unnecessary conditions in
granting quota benefits.
• Thus, In Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Gupta Case (2018) Supreme Court allowed for grant of quota for
promotions in the government jobs to SCs and STs without the need to "collect quantifiable data".
• The court also asked the government to examine the possibility of introducing creamy layer for Scheduled
Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) by saying that if some sections bag all the coveted jobs, it will leave
the rest of the class as backward as they always were.
• It declined the demand to refer the case to a 7 judge bench to reconsider its 2006 Nagaraj judgement.
• Now, the union government has urged the court to reconsider the ruling and refer the issue to a seven-judge
Bench.
Arguments for applying the Creamy Layer concept to SCs/STs
• Improved income and status: The creamy layer within the SCs and STs has improved socio-economic
mobility and by that virtue does not face discrimination of similar intensity.
• Article 335: It states that Affirmative action should be subject to the overall efficiency of Public
Administration. Reservation in promotions may affect the merit-based culture of the organization.
• Prioritizing most marginalized: Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh Case Judgement noted that the benefits, by
and large are snatched away by the top creamy layer of the backward caste or class, keeping the weakest
among the weak always weak and leaving the fortunate layers to consume the whole cake.
Arguments for not applying the Creamy Layer concept to SCs/STs
• Discrimination within service: It is argued that there is widespread discrimination within services. For
example, there are about 12,000 cases lying with the SC/ST Commission, complaining about discrimination
in service.

6 www.visionias.in ©Vision IAS