180 SOCIO-LEGAL REVIEW VOL. 17 the implementation of the 2019 Act.164 Despite the propensity of backlash, curiously enough, the SC has been dragging its feet in hearing the petitions regarding the 2019 Act.165 Most significantly, the SC has refused to place a stay on the 2019 Act before allowing the Central Government to provide a response.166 One of the key questions critics level against the 2019 Act is its selective protection to specific groups.167 Although the ostensible intent of the 2019 Act is to protect refugees fleeing persecution,168 it does so through several illfounded assumptions.169 First, it assumes that religious persecution is confined to countries whose state religion is Islam.170 In contrast, Sri Lankan Tamils faced religious persecution in a non-Islamic state.171 It also seems to believe that only Islamic countries engage in persecution, especially religious persecution. This belief follows the savage-victim-saviour narrative, which portrays India as the saviour for non-Muslims from savage Muslim ‘foreigners’.172 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 caa-protests-jamia-delhi-police_in_5e43b2e5c5b6d0ea38108660> accessed 28 July 2021; Sruthisagar Yamunan, ‘Supreme Court to Tiz Hazari: How the Judiciary Responded to CAA Protests and Police Action’ (Scroll.in, 24 December 2019) <https://scroll.in/article/947770/ supreme-court-to-tiz-hazari-how-the-judiciary-responded-to-caa-protests-and-police-action> accessed 28 July 2021; Soibam Singh, ‘Independent Inquiry Sought into Police Brutality on Jamia Students’ (The Hindu, 4 August 2020) <https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/ independent-inquiry-sought-into-police-brutality-on-jamia-students/article32271993.ece>accessed 28 July 2021. Mohd. Aman Khan v Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine All 1; Rajat Gangwar v State of UP 2019 SCC OnLine All 5792; Kathija Bi v State, Crl. O.P. No. 5219 of 2019 (18 March 2021); Akhil Gogoi v National Investigation Agency, 2021 SCC OnLine Gau 290; Amit Sahni v Commissioner of Police, 2021 (217) AIC 154; Devangana Kalita v Delhi Police 2020 SCC OnLine Del 867; Firoz Khan v State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1694; Indian Union of Muslim League v Union of India, Writ Petition C1470/2019 (22 January 2020). Apoorva Mandhani, ‘CAA Case Comes up Just Thrice in 1 Year in SC Despite 140 Pleas, Including from UN Body’ (The Print, 6 January 2021) <https://theprint.in/judiciary/caa-casecomes-up-just-thrice-in-1-year-in-sc-despite-140-pleas-including-from-un-body/579837/>accessed 28 July 2021. Indian Union of Muslim League (n 164). Chakrabarty (n 28); Ahmed argues that the 2019 Act fails the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness under Article 14 as in Farrah Ahmed, ‘Arbitrariness, Subordination and Unequal Citizenship’ [2020] 4 Indian Law Review 121. Report of the Joint Committee on the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2016 (2019) (‘Joint Committee Report’); 2019 Act, Statement of Objects and Reasons. Jayal (n 23); Poddar (n 27); Jayal (n 27); Bhatia (n 25); Badri Raina, ‘Citizenship Amendment Bill: A Warning Bell for the Republic’ (The Wire, 9 December 2019) <https://thewire.in/religion/citizenship-amendment-bill-hindu-rashtra> accessed 28 July 2021. Namely, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh; Kannan (n 25); Raina (n 169). Deirdre McConnell, ‘A Long History of Tamil Persecution’ (Colombo Telegraph, 29 December 2016) <https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/a-long-history-of-tamil-persecution/> accessed 28 July 2021. Makau Mutua, ‘Savages, Victims and Saviours: The Metaphor of Human Rights’ [2001] 42 Harvard International Law Journal 201.