New Delhi: Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde Thursday stressed a “presumption of constitutionality in law” after a petitioner asked the Supreme Court to declare the contentious Citizenship Amendment Act as constitutional.
“How can we declare that an Act passed by the Parliament is constitutional? There is always a presumption of constitutionality. If you had been a student of law at some point in time, you should know this basic premise,” CJI S.A. Bobde said.
The chief justice made the observation after petitioner Puneet Kaur Dhanda moved a plea in favour of the law passed last month. The country has seen widespread protests against the allegedly “communal” law since its passage in the Parliament.
In his plea, Dhanda also sought action against “activists, students and media houses” for spreading “misinformation” about CAA.
However, Bobde said such matters could be heard only “when the violence stops”.
“Country (is) going through difficult times. Endeavour should be for peace. Such petitions don’t help,” Bobde observed during the urgent hearing Thursday.
Dhanda was seeking to defend the constitutionality of the Act that grants citizenship to persecuted six minority communities — Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Christians and Parsis — from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Also read: Now, pro-CAA lawyers of SC sing Vande Mataram, read Preamble on court premises
The legal challenge to CAA
The latest move in the top court came three weeks after the SC agreed to examine the constitutional validity of the CAA, but refused to stay the law.
At the time, a bench headed by CJI Bobde fixed a batch of 59 petitions, including those filed by the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) and Congress leader Jairam Ramesh for hearing on 22 January.
Apart from these 59, a petition was filed earlier this month by NGO Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) and others seeking a stay on CAA. It said there would be “irreversible consequences” if the court didn’t stay the contentious law.
It also sought a direction to the Modi government to refrain from preparing the proposed National Register of Citizens.
Also read: How citizenship will be granted under new law and what role a state govt plays
So an act is presumed to be constitutional until proven otherwise. And SC won’t entertain petitions against the act until violence stops. So what incentive does the govt have to stop or control violence?
Golden nuggets for the law books… why should one want to travel around in winter, busy right now, safer in jail, pledge not to do politics, sealed envelopes, first no violence, and so on and so forth.
So much strife could have been avoided if the apex court had granted a stay. The lack of constitutionality of this particular law is apparent on the face of the record.