In a significant development on Tuesday (March 19), the Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government on a batch of applications seeking to stay the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the Citizenship Amendment Rules 2024. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested time to respond to the petitions and applications, leading to the Court adjourning today's hearing. A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra posted the matter for April 9.
SG Mehta informed the court of the considerable volume of petitions, with 237 filed and 20 applications seeking a stay. He requested four weeks to collate and file a response, prompting objections from Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who argued against the lengthy timeframe, suggesting that the process could wait until a later date without urgency.
Further discussions ensued, with Senior Advocate Indira Jaising urging SG Mehta to ensure that no citizenship is granted pending the hearing. Arguments were presented regarding potential prejudice caused by the CAA, especially concerning those left out of the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
In response to the concerns, Chief Justice Chandrachud instructed the solicitor general to file a response only to the interim application, granting a reduced timeframe of three weeks. He also clarified that the government lacked the infrastructure for processing citizenship applications at present.
The hearing took place amidst a flurry of legal actions following the recent notification of the rules by the Union government. Various petitioners, including the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), the State of Kerala, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen chief Asaduddin Owaisi, and opposition leaders from Assam, have filed interlocutory stay applications in their pending writ petitions.
The bench also appointed separate nodal counsel for petitions relating to the States of Assam and Tripura, with Advocate Ankit Yadav representing the petitioners and Advocate Kanu Agarwal for the respondents.
The court directed the matter to be adjourned until April 9, keeping the legal proceedings dynamic and under close observation amidst the ongoing debate surrounding the CAA.
