Applying the Test of Proportionality to the Implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) has sparked extensive debate and legal scrutiny since its enactment, with various constitutional challenges highlighting concerns over its religious exclusions and implications for the right to equality and secularism in India. As the Union government recently notified the CAA Rules to outline the implementation procedure, the Supreme Court faces urgent hearings on the matter. While much attention has been devoted to the constitutional aspects of the CAA, we propose a fresh perspective—applying the test of proportionality to assess its implementation and impact on the ground.

The CAA, which lowers the residency requirement for citizenship from 11 to 5 years for persons from specified religions, excluding Islam, has raised fundamental questions about discrimination and equality before the law. As the machinery for implementing the CAA takes shape through the newly introduced rules, it is crucial to scrutinize the procedural aspects through the lens of proportionality.

The test of proportionality, developed by the Supreme Court of India over the years, evaluates whether a government action is proportionate to its intended objective and considers whether less restrictive alternatives are available. Applying this test to the CAA Rules can shed light on their normative and strategic implications, providing valuable insights for the ongoing legal challenges.

The CAA Rules, as executive-made legislation, amend the Citizenship Rules of 2009 to delineate the procedure for expedited naturalization of individuals from specified religious groups. However, the rules’ intricacies and potential implications on the ground warrant careful examination.

By subjecting the CAA implementation process to the test of proportionality, the Supreme Court can evaluate whether the procedural mechanisms outlined in the rules align with constitutional principles of equality, non-discrimination, and secularism. Moreover, it can assess whether the rules effectively achieve the CAA’s purported objectives while minimizing any undue infringement on individual rights.

Importantly, our analysis suggests that the test of proportionality holds broader significance beyond the specific context of the CAA. By demonstrating its utility in adjudicating discrimination cases and assessing government actions, the application of proportionality can contribute to a more robust and nuanced understanding of constitutional law and governance in India.

As the legal proceedings unfold, it is imperative for the Supreme Court to consider the procedural dimensions of the CAA alongside its constitutional implications. By incorporating the test of proportionality into its deliberations, the Court can ensure a comprehensive assessment of the CAA’s implementation, thereby upholding the principles of justice, equality, and constitutionalism.

If you like this law news, share it with a friend!