Skip to main content

Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019

Citizenship Amendment Act, (2019) 

 

India is a secular, independent, and peaceful nation. It's possible that it's the only country on the planet that can justify the slogan "Unity in Diversity." Perhaps this is why so many people aspire to be Indian citizens.

 

Aim of the Bill:

The Lok Sabha passed the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 2019 on December 9, 2019. The goal of this bill is to award Indian citizenship to illegal migrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan who belong to the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, Parsi, and Jain communities.

Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, and Parsis are among the six communities.

The Foreigners Act of 1946 and the Passport (Entry into India) Act of 1920 both allow for the imprisonment or deportation of illegal migrants. These two Acts give the central government the authority to monitor foreigners' entry, exit, and stay in India. It has also shortened the time it takes for these populations to get citizenship through naturalization from eleven to five years. The change has sparked outrage across India, with the majority of the opposition coming from the North-eastern states. The fundamental issue is that the amendment violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality, because it is religiously discriminatory.

 

Deadline: CAA (2019)

The citizenship deadline is December 31, 2014, which means that the candidate must have entered India on or before that date. The intruders are thought to be people who were "forced or persuaded to seek refuge in India due to persecution on the basis of their faith" in their home country.

Citizenship Amendment Act of 1955

The Citizenship Amendment Bill of 1955 lays out five requirements for attaining Indian citizenship, including:

1. Birthright Citizenship

2. Citizenship by Descent is number 

3. Registration as a citizen

4. Naturalization as a method of obtaining citizenship

5. Citizenship through territorial incorporation

The Citizenship Amendment Bill of 1955 made it essential for a person to stay in India for at least 11 years in order to naturally gain citizenship, which was then decreased to 6 years, however this duration was cut to 5 years in the Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2019. If a person is of Indian origin (e.g., a former citizen of India or their descendants) or the spouse of a person of Indian origin, an OCI card may be issued under the Citizenship Act of 1955. OCI cardholders can now travel, work, and study in India under the terms of the Act of 2019.

Citizenship of OCI cardholders can be revoked for five reasons, according to the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016.

1)  Expressing dissatisfaction with India's Constitution

2)  Fraudulent registration

3) During a conflict, engaging the enemy.

4)  Endangering India's sovereignty

5) Sentenced to two years or more in prison within five years of registering as an OCI.

However, the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019, included a new reason for cancellation: if the OCI has broken any law in the country.

According to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2019, when a person obtains citizenship, he or she must: a) Such persons shall be considered Indian citizens as of the date of their arrival into India (on or before December 31, 2014), and

b) All legal processes involving illegal migrants' illegal migration or citizenship will be terminated.

The bill, however, excludes illegal migrants from Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura from receiving these benefits.

However, under the current Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019, this duration would be reduced from six to five years.

Reason that this bill was opposed:

This bill is opposed mostly because it does not grant citizenship to illegal Muslim immigration from these three nations. Another reason for its condemnation is that it breaches the Indian Constitution's Article 14 requirements. These are some of the clauses of the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019, which provides citizenship to illegal migrants from three nations. Some argue, however, that this change violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination against anybody based solely on caste, religion, sex, or location. Hopefully, after hearing from all sides of the country, the administration will make the right decision.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more