We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
Now, the real fear was about the NRC. Everyone thought it would make Muslims stateless. BJP did an NRC in Assam and learned their lesson real quick, that it was a stupid idea. Honestly, CAA was tame and nothing to be concerned about; there were hardly any beneficiaries to begin with. Now, some people will talk about Ahmadiyyas, but again, they could get citizenship in five more years. If surviving persecution was the point, then it was achieved. A state with 80% of the population belonging to one religion can never be truly secular in reality. The nation exists outside of Supreme Court halls as well.
And let me be clear, CAA was not a criterion for citizenship. It was fast-tracking it; there's a big difference between the two. Just go and check what the dadis at Shaheen Bagh were actually protesting about. They were saying CAA was a programme to deny citizenship to Muslims. That is factually wrong. A shit ton of protestors had a complete misunderstanding of the law. Some media houses blowing the fuck out of it didn't help much. The whole thing was mostly based on a slippery slope argument. "CAA alone is fine, but CAA plus NRC will target Muslims." The NRC never came. The slippery slope never materialised.
CAA and NRC would have made Hindus stateless too. How do you think a Hindu would have proved his citizenship? The average Indian doesn't have documentation going back generations. That is why BJP buried the nationwide NRC after Assam blew up in their face. It was an everybody problem.
Now, the actual problem none of us is trying to solve. Today, a person can get a passport in this country with nothing but an Aadhaar. For the non-tatkal ECR category, you need Aadhaar plus one other document, which can also be obtained through Aadhaar. As you can see, if an illegal immigrant enters, all they need is an Aadhaar and a document from Aadhaar. PSK is processing them like normal paperwork. They are not even able to do passport verification and issuance properly, how do you expect them to pull off a citizenship verification exercise for 1.4 billion people?
The Supreme Court has never stayed this law. Seven years, 240-plus petitions, not once. The Section 6A judgment from October 2024 upheld Parliament's power to legislate on citizenship and accepted that classification based on specific historical context has rational nexus. The legal principles from that case favour CAA heavily.
Even if the government tried pulling something even remotely comparable to making Muslims stateless en-masse, the nation would burn, and they know it better than anyone. 200 million Muslims embedded in every layer of this country. India's political system has a self-correcting mechanism built into sheer numbers.
BJP's political apparatus just wants to rule. They are not even Hindutva in the way you believe they are; they say whatever gets them the seat. They are very shameless about it. Look at West Bengal. In 2021, full polarisation, got destroyed. 2024 Lok Sabha, dropped from 18 to 12 seats. So for 2026, Modi starts eating jhalmuri at roadside stalls and doing boat rides on the Hooghly. Mixed the infiltrator narrative with anti-incumbency. Result: 207 out of 293 seats. In the Northeast they don't campaign for beef ban, they campaign for development. They use Hindutva in the Hindi heartland, because that's what helps them to win.
This is a wrong assumption.
P.S. You don't have to mention you are a clat aspirant. Anyone and everyone is allowed to have a intellectual discourse.
Only a small number of committed ideological people, in academia or NGOs, will.
If yes, then is the argument that this violates Article 14 of the Constitution, or anything else?
If it’s an Article 14 argument, isn’t this a permissible differentiation, given the atrocities against Hindus and Buddhists (Chakmas) in Bangladesh? Or against Hindus, Sikhs and Christians in Pakistan? Plus the institution of a Taliban govt in Afghanistan which doesn’t treat non-Muslims as equals?
If the argument is that Muslims in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan also suffer from persecution (for example, political opponents), then can’t they claim asylum in other Muslim countries or the West? Isn’t it a defensible argument that India and Nepal are the only Hindu-majority countries in the world and can prioritise members of that faith and civilisation? Just like the US/EU raises the issue of discrimination against Christians and gives Christians from Muslim countries asylum? And doesn’t India anyway give political asylum to Muslim like Taslima Nasreen, Sheikh Hasina etc?
Sorry if I sound dumb, but I don’t quite get it. 🤷♂️