A Intention vs Effect? 27. The Indian government’s stated intention is benevolent, namely, to enable specified ‘migrants [to be] eligible for Indian Citizenship’. 44 Those migrants are explicitly stated to be the ‘many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities [from specified countries who] have faced persecution on grounds of religion in those countries’. 45 28. There is no requirement at international law for a distinction to have a malevolent intent in order to constitute discrimination. As the Human Rights Committee has explained, ‘discrimination’ under the ICCPR covers ‘distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences based on any of the protected grounds in Article 2’, which have ‘the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all persons, on an equal footing, of all rights and freedoms. 46 This is the position adopted in relation to all relevant treaties. 47 29. In this case the CAA makes an explicit distinction based on country of origin and religion. It has at least the effect of excluding from access to Indian citizenship persons who do not meet the criteria, namely, migrants from the specified countries who belong to nonprotected religions and migrants from non-specified countries. 30. The CAA thus differentiates on protected grounds, namely religion, and country of origin. B Legitimate End? Rationale/Justification: Refugee Protection? 31. Regarding justified acts of discrimination, the Human Rights Committee has noted that ‘[n]ot every differential treatment will constitute discrimination, if the criteria for such differentiation are reasonable and objective and if the aim is to achieve a purpose which is legitimate under the Covenant.’ 48 Further for a measure to be legitimate it must be proportional to the achievement of this legitimate aim. 49 32. The government’s Statement of Objects and Reasons (‘Statement of Objects’) provides the following justifications: The constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh provide for a specific state religion. As a result, many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities have faced persecution on grounds of religion in those 44 Statement of Objects and Reasons, Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019 (India) [4] (‘Statement of Objects’). In the Counter Affidavit (n 23), the government argues that, ‘It is submitted that CAA is a benign piece of legislation…’: at [8]. 45 Statement of Objects (n 44) [2]. See also Counter Affidavit (n 23) [8]. 46 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 18 (n 39) [7] (emphasis added).. 47 See, eg. ICERD (n 9) art 1(1); Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, ‘General Recommendation XIV on Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention’ in Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, UN Doc A/48/18 (15 September 1993) 115 [1]; CEDAW (n 10) art 1. 48 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 18 (n 39) [13] (emphasis added). 49 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 31[80]: The Nature of the General Legal Obligations Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13 (26 May 2004) [6]. NB. The need for a reasonable and objective criteria of differentiation, legitimacy in aim and proportionality to that aim has been reiterated by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, see Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation No 32 (n 34) [7] – [8]. 10