States have no power to deny Citizenship Amendment Act, Experts have mixed views
New Delhi/IBNS: Amid vehement protests against the Citizenship(Amendment) Act by the Opposition and denial by non-BJP states to recognise the newly amended law, the Home Ministry has said the states don't have any power to reject its implementation, reported Indian Express.
Even as the bill became law after President Ram Nath Kovind's assent on the intervening night of Thursday and Friday, Chief Ministers of Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal and Punjab declared they would not allow the law in their respective states, alleging that the law is against the spirit of Constitution, anti-minority and divisive.
“The new legislation has been enacted under the Union List of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution, so it is a subject on which states have no power,” a top MHA source was quoted as saying by the Indian Express.
West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee said she would not allow the law "under any circumstances".
“In your (BJP) manifesto, instead of development issues, you have put in a promise to divide the country. Why will citizenship be on the basis of religion? I will not accept this. We dare you…” the Indian Express quoted her.
Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Kamal Nath and Punjab Chief Minister Captain Amrinder Singh said they would implement the decision taken in the Congress party forum, media reported.
Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan of the left front government said the law is "unconstitutional".
Citizenship and Naturalization are among the 97 items in the Union List of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution.
Former Solicitor General of India and retd Lokayukta of Karnataka, Santosh Hegde, was quoted as saying by news organisation Republic, "As per the law, as per Articles 14 and 25, etc. the object of the act seems to be to provide relief to those who are being troubled by their home countries. And if this is done on humanitarian grounds, how can they be discriminated against on the basis of their religion. If you are providing citizenship on the basis that he is persecuted in his country, religion cannot be brought in. You cannot then say, 'if you are a Muslim, you have not suffered'. If you have material to show the person is a threat to national security, then a Hindu, Muslim or anyone can not be given citizenship.'"
On the other hand, Shrihari Aney, Former Advocate General of Maharashtra told Republic that states cannot have a different say against a Central law.
"If it was a constitutional amendment in which the states have to pass in their states as well, then they could have opposed it. This is just the law within the competence of the parliament, the states refusing to implement it would amount to a refusal to abide by its constitutional duty," he pointed out.
"All they can do is to drag their feet, not make available the bureaucratic support needed for implementation," he added.
Whether the law is unconstitutional will be decided by the Supreme Court, he said.
Support Our Journalism
We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism
IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.
Support objective journalism for a small contribution.
