The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to stay the May 28 executive order of the Union home ministry to grant citizenship to non-Muslims from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan residing in 13 districts of India.

In an application through its general secretary P.K. Kunhalikutty, the IUML has urged the apex court to declare the government’s decision as being violative of citizens’ fundamental rights to equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15) and life and personal liberty (Article 21) since the constitutional validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019, was pending adjudication.

The court is hearing a batch of over 50 petitions, including that of the IUML. The petitions could not be taken up because of the pandemic.

The interim application argued that by granting citizenship under the original Act, the Centre was trying to circumvent the assurance given to the apex court that there was no need to stay the CAA as its rules had not been framed.

Neither the Citizenship Act, 1955, under which the Centre is inviting applications for citizenship in 13 districts of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Haryana and Punjab, nor its rules framed in 2009 provide for religion-based citizenship.

The CAA proposes to fast-track Indian citizenship to persecuted minorities from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan belonging to the Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Parsi and Christian communities who came to India before December 31, 2014. Critics argue that the law appears to be aimed at excluding Muslims. The CAA had sparked widespread protests for tying citizenship to religion.

Last Friday, the Union home ministry issued a notification inviting people of these communities tracing their roots to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh and residing in 13 Indian districts to apply for citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955.

The IUML, a party based in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, submitted that the order issued by the home ministry is “manifestly illegal and runs counter to the provisions of the Act, as well as the Constitution”.

The petition filed through advocate Pallavi Pratap has alleged that the home ministry has “illegally” permitted the collectors of the 13 districts to grant citizenship although such a provision was added only in the CAA, whose rules are yet to be framed.

The 1955 Citizenship Act lays down in unequivocal terms that persons are eligible to apply for citizenship through registration or naturalisation. Through Section 16 of the CAA, a third procedure has been added, delegating the power to “collectors of certain districts to grant citizenship to persons”.

“Therefore, the attempt being made by the respondent Union in whittling down the applicability of the two provisions through an executive order is illegal. That the two provisions read together do not permit the classification of applicants on the ground of religion and therefore the order goes beyond what is permitted by the provision itself,” the IUML plea said.

“Furthermore, the order does not withstand the test of Article 14 inasmuch as it treats people within a particular class, i.e. persons entitled to apply for citizenship by registration and naturalisation, unequally by virtue of their religion,” the petition added.

Pointing to the Centre’s assurance to the Supreme Court that the CAA need not be set aside as the rules had not been framed, the IUML said: “…The respondent Union, in a roundabout way, and in an attempt to circumvent the assurance given to this court, has sought to implement their malafide designs envisaged under the Amendment Act through the recently issued order dated May 28.”

The IUML contended that if the Supreme Court struck down the CAA, the citizenship granted on the basis of religion under the 1955 Act would also have to be declared void. “Then, to take back the citizenship of these persons, granted pursuant to the present order, will be a Herculean task and would be near impossible to implement. In the event the said exercise is conducted, it would render the entire batch of writ petitions (challenging the CAA) as infructous,” the plea said.