The Citizenship Amendment Bill, passed by the Parliament of India and after the President's seal, has now taken the form of law.

Now it has been implemented across the country, but on one hand, there are protests in the northeastern states on the one hand, while some state governments are refusing to implement it.

According to the news agency ANI, the chief ministers of five states have said that they will not implement it on their own.

The new name of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has been added to this list of Chief Ministers who have talked about not allowing the citizenship amendment law in their state.

Mamta Banerjee has said that she will not allow it to be implemented in her state.

The ruling Trinamool Congress chief said in a press conference on Friday, "India is a democratic country and no party can change its nature. Nobody needs to be scared in our state. No one can get you out Is. No one can implement this law in my state.''

Even before Mamta, two states Punjab and Kerala said that they will not implement this amendment bill on their own.

Punjab Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh tweeted, "Any law that divides people on the basis of religion, is unconstitutional and immoral, is illegal. India's power is in its diversity and the Citizenship Amendment Act violates its basic principles. So, my government will not allow it to be implemented in Punjab.''

At the same time, Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan also tweeted that the Citizenship Amendment Bill was unconstitutional, that he would not allow it to be implemented in his state.

He tweeted that the central government is trying to divide India religiously. It will destroy equality and secularism.

In the tweet, he wrote, "Determining citizenship on the basis of religion is a rejection of the constitution. This will leave our country far behind. After much struggle, freedom is at stake.

According to the daily newspaper 'The Hindu', he said that the communally polarized law that discriminated against Islam had no place in Kerala.

Apart from this, two other states whose chief ministers have given a statement on this are Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh. Both these states have Congress governments.

Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel and Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Kamal Nath said that they are waiting for the decision of the Congress Party on this law.

Now in such a situation, the question arises that can the state governments refuse to implement the citizenship amendment law? What does the constitution say? And what options do those who oppose?

Voices of opposition to the Citizenship Amendment Act have so far arisen from non-BJP ruled states. Can these states refuse to implement the citizenship amendment law if they so desire?

Constitution experts say that this is not possible at all.

Constitutional expert Chanchal Kumar states that "President Ramnath Kovind has made it a law by putting his seal on the Citizenship Amendment Bill 2019 on Thursday. This law has come into force as soon as it is published in the official gazette. Now since this statute comes in the Union list under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. So this amendment is applicable to all the states and even if the state wishes it cannot do much on it.''

He explains, "The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution describes the rights of the states and the Center. It has three lists - Union, State and Concurrent List. Citizenship comes under the Union List. Therefore, the State Governments have no authority over it.''

The same thing is also said by the central government that the state has no right to make any decision related to the topic 'citizenship' which comes in the list of the center.

According to a senior Home Ministry official, states cannot refuse to implement the law made under the subjects falling in the Central List.

If the state governments cannot go against this law, then what are the options before those who oppose it? Can this law be challenged in court?

Chanchal Kumar says that no state government, institution or trust can question this law. They say that the issue is of citizenship and citizenship is given to a particular person, so only he can raise voice against it. One can go to the court to challenge it.

Faizan Mustafa, an expert in legal matters, told the BBC that under Article 14 of the Constitution, the state would not deny equal protection under the law to both citizens and non-citizens.

He says that, "The Constitution considers any form of discrimination and classification on the basis of religion to be illegal."

According to him, "Migrant Muslims from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan are also protected under Article 14. It is against its original spirit to leave people of Islam and Judaism. That means a person can go to court against it and There it has to be proved how this law can change the basic structure of the Constitution. ''

The Indian Union Muslim League had reached the Supreme Court to challenge the Citizenship Amendment Bill even before it was passed in the Rajya Sabha.

After the enactment of the law, the General Secretary of the Jan Adhikar Party, Faiz Ahmed, also filed a petition on Friday.

Apart from this, the Peace Party has also filed a petition in the Supreme Court. He says that this law violates Article 14 and is against the basic structure / Preamble of the Constitution. They say that citizenship cannot be granted on the basis of religion.

Similarly, lawyer Ehtesham Hashmi, journalist Zia-ul-Salaam and law students Munib Ahmed Khan, Apoorva Jain and Adil Talib have also gone to the Supreme Court.

In their petition, they have demanded cancellation of this law as unconstitutional. They have said that this law discriminates on the basis of religion and equality and the Supreme Court should protect the life, personal liberty and dignity of the Muslim community.

On Friday, Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra also filed a petition in the Supreme Court against this amendment law.

In her petition, Moitra said that the exclusion of Muslims under this law shows discrimination, hence it violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

She also said that this law also violates secularism, the basic form of our constitution. But what will happen to these petitions in court? Will they be able to prove that it is against the basic form of the Constitution?

Mustafa says that the person who challenges it will be burdened to prove how and in what manner it is unconstitutional.

He says that such cases often go to the Constitutional Bench and many cases are already pending with the Bench due to which it will not be heard soon.

In the Citizenship Act 1955, some contracts have been added under the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019.

Under this, six minority communities (Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, Christians and Sikhs) from Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan who came to India on or before 31 December 2014 who have suffered religious persecution in their country, are not considered illegal. Rather, a provision will be made to give Indian citizenship.

But this will not be applicable in most of the states in the Northeast and some districts of Assam. Because it stipulates that such persons are not residing in Assam, Meghalaya and parts of Tripura where the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution comes into force and Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Nagaland falling under Inner Line Permit.

Manipur was also proposed to be included in the Inner Line Permit while introducing the Citizenship Amendment Bill.

The Inner Line Permit is a travel document that the Government of India issues to its citizens for a specified period of travel in any of its protected areas.

It was made a provision in the Regulation of 1873 for protection measures and protection of local ethnic groups.

The states of Northeast India falling in the sixth schedule have also been kept out of the purview of the Citizenship Amendment Bill.

This means that Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis, Jains and Christians from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh before 31 December 2014 would not be able to get any land or occupation rights in Meghalaya and Mizoram, despite acquiring citizenship of India.

The citizenship amendment law has been in dispute since the beginning. Prior to the amendment, according to this law, it was mandatory for any person to stay in India for at least 11 years to take Indian citizenship.

The time period has been reduced from 11 to six years for the six minorities of the three neighboring countries, as mentioned in the amended law.

Also, such amendments have been made in the Citizenship Act, 1955, to give legal help to these people to give them citizenship.

The Citizenship Act, 1955 did not give citizenship to people who had entered India illegally earlier and there was a provision to send them back to their country or to be detained.

(Click here for Android APP of IBTN. You can follow us on facebook and Twitter)

Share This News

About sharing