CAA not to withstand judicial scrutiny since it is a badly drafted document: Arup Borbora

The new legislation is badly drafted with many contradictions

STAFF REPORTER

GUWAHATI: Eminent lawyer Arup Borbora has asserted that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) cannot withstand judicial scrutiny since it is a badly drafted document with many self-contradictions.

Several organizations including the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) have approached the Supreme Court challenging the Constitutional and legal validity of the CAA recently passed by the Parliament.

“I have gone through the CAA and found that it is badly drafted. Even though I cannot vouch for or predict, 40 years of my legal practice has arisen hope in me that the CAA will not withstand judicial scrutiny,” Borbora, senior advocate of the Gauhati High Court told The Sentinel.

Borbora said the CAA is opposed to the basic structure of the Constitution and goes against the equality clause namely Article 14. “It has created a class within a class which cannot be said to be a reasonable classification having nexus with the object,” he said.

According to Borbora, the new legislation on citizenship has also gone against tenets of secularism. He pointed out that even though the word ‘secularism’ was inserted in the Preamble of the Constitution in 1976, the Supreme Court in its several cases repeatedly asserted that secularism is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

“With all intention and purpose of the Act, it is very clear that it has created artificial differentiation, irrational differentiation with regard to geographical application and also with beneficiaries of religious communities. The Act has talked about five religious communities. It has excluded the Muslims,” Borbora said, adding that exclusion of Muslims is prompted by communalism rather than rationality.

Arup Borbora further said the CAA has talked about only three countries namely Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afganisthan to deal with the religiously persecuted persons.

“I do not know the historical significance of keeping only three countries under the purview of the Act. Why countries like Nepal, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Bhutan not included in the Act. Tamil Hindus are facing religious persecution in northern Jaffna in Sri Lanka for a long time. There are refugee camps in Tamil Nadu for more than 1.5 lakh Tamil Hindus persecuted in Sri Lanka. Why is the Act not talking about these Hindus? The CAA has lot of self-contradictions. Paragraphs of the Act are full of contradictions,” Borbora said.

The lawyer said the CAA has also tried to divide the North East by exempting certain areas such as the ‘Inner Line Permit States’ from the purview of the Act. He said the Act has violated the fundamental character and spirit of the Assam Accord. The CAA has also negated the National Registrar of Citizens (NRC).

“Going by all these contradictions, I find the CAA not a constitutionally valid document. Though I cannot comment on the Supreme Court, I have deep faith that the apex Court will reject this contentious legislation,” Arup Borbora said.

Also Read: Anti-CAA stir: Congress demands judicial probe into firing

Also Watch: RD Junior College Students Stage Massive Protest against CAB