The Supreme Court docket Monday stated that it’s going to hear a batch of petitions difficult the Citizenship (Modification) Act, 2019, on December 6, whereas appointing two nodal counsels for the compilation of all related paperwork pertaining to the case.
The apex courtroom additionally requested state governments of Assam and Tripura to file a response inside two weeks in issues particularly regarding them.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit, comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi, was listening to the petitions by the All Assam College students Union (AASU) and others difficult the validity of the CAA.
The bench appointed Advocates Pallavi Pratap, advocate for petitioner Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) and advocate Kanu Agrawal (Central authorities counsel) as nodal counsel to compile all related paperwork. “Having famous that there are numerous pleas projecting a number of views, decision of whole controversy might be achieved if two or three issues are taken as lead issues and comfort compilations of all counsels are ready properly upfront. it will make proceedings handy,” the bench famous.
Supreme Court docket posts petitions difficult the constitutional validity of Citizenship (Modification) Act, 2019 for listening to on December 6. @IndianExpress
— Ananthakrishnan G (@axidentaljourno) October 31, 2022
The highest courtroom additionally requested the nodal counsel to share the compilation with all attorneys pertaining to the matter, and “designate one or two different issues as lead issues protecting in thoughts geographical/spiritual classification”.
On Sunday, the Union authorities advised the Supreme Court docket that the CAA is a “slim” piece of laws that doesn’t have an effect on the present regime for acquiring Indian citizenship, and authorized migration, on the idea of legitimate paperwork and visa, continues to be permissible from all nations.
Urging the highest courtroom to dismiss the pleas, the federal government stated in its affidavit that the Act “doesn’t in any method encourage unlawful migration into Assam” and termed it an “unfounded…apprehension”.
— with inputs from Bar and Bench