- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
[ By Bobby Anthony ]Balochistan Hindu Panchayat, an organization working for the protection of Hindus who fled Pakistan due to religious persecution has defended the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) before the Supreme Court.The organization said the CAA is essential to protect minorities in three neighboring countries and it is not adverse to the principle of secularism.In an application,...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Balochistan Hindu Panchayat, an organization working for the protection of Hindus who fled Pakistan due to religious persecution has defended the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) before the Supreme Court.
The organization said the CAA is essential to protect minorities in three neighboring countries and it is not adverse to the principle of secularism.
In an application, the Delhi-based NGO contended the core the CAA passed in December 2019, claiming that it ensures well-being of religious minorities who face religious persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh as well as Afghanistan.
“India has not discriminated or set aside people from any particular community here. The CAA does not state that the Muslims will not be granted citizenship. Because Pakistan did not honor the Nehru-Liaquat Agreement, the government made a reasonable classification to prefer the communities of Hindu, Sikh, Parsi, Christian, and Buddhist,” the NGO’s application stated.
The applicant has contended that the CAA did not say that if a Muslim immigrant were to apply for citizenship, it would not be considered.
The NGO’s application emphasized that Muslims were neither minorities nor do they face religious persecution because of their religion. It contended that CAA was based upon the principle of protecting minorities, as the Constitution from Article 29 to Article 30 provided for special treatment and protection to minorities, which is not available to them in Muslim majority countries.
“The right to avail citizenship is equally applicable for the religious majority of these three countries like other foreigners. It is only for religious minorities of these three countries, because of their being a persecuted class, their application for citizenship is being fast-tracked under the present amendment,” the NGO’s application stated.
The application has also challenged the maintainability of petitions under Article 32 as none of the petitioners was aggrieved by the legislation.