The Transnational Human Rights Review, Vol. 8, Iss. 1 [2021], Art. 1 The Act amends the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955, along with the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Passport Act, 1920 and their consequent rules. The 2019 Act declares that all those travelling from the Muslim-majority countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan without valid documents or overstaying their travel limits, will not be categorized as “illegal migrants”, as long as they are non-Muslims.5 It further allows these individuals an expedited route to citizenship through naturalization, reducing the period under the 1955 Act from eleven years to five years, in case they entered the territory before 31 December 2014. Once naturalized, their citizenship status is backdated to this proposed cut-off date.6 The Act’s enactment saw the breakout of large-scale protests and communal violence across the country.7 Internationally as well, India’s move drew condemnation from all quarters over the glaring omission of Muslims. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR) filed an intervention application before the Supreme Court, on the ground that the Act, though commendable in its purpose, was clearly discriminatory and violated India’s international obligations.8 The Union Government rebutted with the flawed argument that Muslims could not face persecution in Muslim-majority countries, and even if they did, they could seek refuge in other Islamic nations.9 Noticeably, the intervention was confined to refugee-specific issues. As will be seen, limiting the question to issues of immigration, allows states to claim the ground of security and sovereignty to justify their actions. Most of the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Act are premised on how it contravenes principles of secularism and equality that rest with all persons, including refugees, and have been previously adjudged as part of the basic unalterable structure to the Indian Constitution.10 5 CAA, 2019, s. 2. The Act specifically exempts Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Parsis, Jains and Buddhists from these documents. 6 Ibid at s. 3. 7 Sanya Mansoor & Billy Perrigo, “‘This is not just a Muslim fight.’ Inside the Anti-Citizenship Act Protests Rocking India”, Time (19 December 2019), online: <https://time.com/5752186/india-protests-citizenship-act/>. 8 IFS (Retd). & Ors. V Union of India (2019), W.P. (Civil) no. 1474 of 2019, “Application for intervention by United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights”, online: <https://www.scribd.com/document/449928296/Draft-Intervention-application-on-behalf-ofOHCHR#from_embed> 9 Rajya Sabha, “Supplement to Synopsis of Debate”, (11 December 2019) at 561, online (pdf): <http://164.100.47.5/newsynopsis1/englishsessionno/250/Suppl.%20Synopsis%20_E_%20dated%2011.12.pdf>. 10 See, Sanya Talwar, “CAA Challenge: SC Issues Notice in Fresh Batch Of Petitions, Tags Them With 160 Pending Pleas Seeking Similar Prayer”, LiveLaw (20 May 2020), online: <https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/caa-challengesc-issues-notice-in-fresh-batch-of-petitions-tags-them-with-160-pending-pleas-seeking-similar-prayer-157076>. https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/thr/vol8/iss1/1 DOI: 10.60082/2563-4631.1096 2