The Supreme Court recently cited the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019 while allowing the citizenship claim of an individual who migrated from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) to India in 1969.
The bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice R. Mahadevan referred to the proviso added to Section 2(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (“Act”) by the 2019 Amendment to state that the appellant (belonging to the Hindu religion) would not be treated as an ‘illegal migrant’.
The CAA grants Indian citizenship to non-Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan who entered India on or before December 31, 2014. The proviso to Section 2(1)(b) states that “any person belonging to the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, or Pakistan who entered India before December 31, 2014, without valid documents will not be treated as an ‘illegal migrant’.”
The appellant, at the age of 16 years, migrated to India with his father in 1969 from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). To secure a government job in the West Bengal Government, he applied for a citizenship certificate based on the migration certificate issued to his father. The respondent authorities granted a no-objection certificate to the appellant, and he was appointed in the West Bengal Government service in 1985. However, a Police Verification Report (“Report”) which ought to be submitted within three months from the date of an appointment, was only submitted in the year 2010 i.e., after an inordinate delay of over 25 years after his appointment. The Report found the appellant to be ‘unsuitable’ for the services because his citizenship was not proved. Subsequently, in 2011, the appellant was terminated from the services and denied retiral benefits.
He approached the Supreme Court after the Calcutta High Court set aside the Administrative Tribunal’s order which had quashed the government’s decision to dismiss him from service.
The appellant contended that his citizenship could not be doubted. He sought a citizenship certificate based on his father’s migration document to secure a government job. The state, however, argued that the migration certificate alone could not establish Indian citizenship and that the appellant needed to register his citizenship with the authorities.
The judgment authored by Justice Mahadevanobserved that the appellant would be entitled to Indian Citizenship via Registration under Section 5(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act. Section 5(1)(b) of the Act says that “a person of Indian origin who is an ordinary resident of any country or place outside undivided India is entitled to citizenship.”
“In the instant case, the appellant claimed that his grandparents are Indian citizens because of their birth. The provisions relating to citizenship are enshrined in Part II of the Constitution of India under Articles 5 to 11. Section 4 of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955, entitles the appellant’s father to be treated as a citizen by descent. The appellant is also entitled to citizenship by registration as per Section 5 of the Act.”, the court said.
The Court observed that, in addition to acquiring citizenship through registration, the appellant, being a non-Muslim, would also benefit from the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019. This Act exempts individuals who entered India before December 31, 2014, from being treated as “illegal migrants,” thereby entitling them to citizenship benefits.
“The intention of the Central Government to award citizenship to minorities from neighboring countries has been spelled out by way of amendment to Section 2, by introducing Proviso in Section 2 vide Amendment Act No.47 of 2019 with effect from 10.01.2020, which states that the persons like the appellant herein are not be treated as ‘illegal migrants‘.“, the court said.
Accordingly, the Court held in the appellant’s favor regarding the grant of Indian Citizenship and ordered the respondent state to pay the retiral benefits to the appellant.
