<p>Following in footsteps of Kerala, Congress led Rajasthan government has approached the Supreme Court challenging validity of the contentious Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019.</p>.<p>In a suit, the state government asked the top court to pass a judgement, declaring the amendment act as violative of Article 14 (equality) and 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution and the basic structure principle of secularism.</p>.<p>The petition has been settled by senior advocate Manish Singhvi on behalf of the state government.</p>.<p>Days after passing resolution in State Assembly, the CPM-led government of Kerala had in January filed an original suit under Article 131, which is invoked when there is a dispute among states and between a state and the Union of India, of the Constitution.</p>.<p>It had questioned validity of the Act, saying that it would be compelled under Article 256 of the Constitution to ensure compliance of the law, rules and orders which were “manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, and irrational and violative of the fundamental rights”.</p>.<p>Over 150 petitions from various parties including MPs, activists, NGOs and religious groups, have already been filed in the apex court against the amendment.</p>.<p>When the matter came up before the court in January, it had refused to stay the implementation of the 2019 law, and indicated to set up a Constitution bench to decide upon validity of the law, which allowed fast-tracked citizenship to religious minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.</p>.<p>The CAA amended the definition of illegal immigrants, belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Parsi, Buddhist and Christian religions, from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, by allowing them fast track Indian citizenship in six years, if they had entered the country before December 31, 2014.</p>.<p>Indian citizenship was earlier given either to those born in India or if they have resided in the country for a minimum of 11 years.</p>.<p>The petitioners questioned exclusion of the Muslims from three neighbouring countries and also not incorporating people from other countries, saying it violated the fundamental rights and secularism, among others.</p>
<p>Following in footsteps of Kerala, Congress led Rajasthan government has approached the Supreme Court challenging validity of the contentious Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019.</p>.<p>In a suit, the state government asked the top court to pass a judgement, declaring the amendment act as violative of Article 14 (equality) and 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution and the basic structure principle of secularism.</p>.<p>The petition has been settled by senior advocate Manish Singhvi on behalf of the state government.</p>.<p>Days after passing resolution in State Assembly, the CPM-led government of Kerala had in January filed an original suit under Article 131, which is invoked when there is a dispute among states and between a state and the Union of India, of the Constitution.</p>.<p>It had questioned validity of the Act, saying that it would be compelled under Article 256 of the Constitution to ensure compliance of the law, rules and orders which were “manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, and irrational and violative of the fundamental rights”.</p>.<p>Over 150 petitions from various parties including MPs, activists, NGOs and religious groups, have already been filed in the apex court against the amendment.</p>.<p>When the matter came up before the court in January, it had refused to stay the implementation of the 2019 law, and indicated to set up a Constitution bench to decide upon validity of the law, which allowed fast-tracked citizenship to religious minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.</p>.<p>The CAA amended the definition of illegal immigrants, belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Parsi, Buddhist and Christian religions, from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, by allowing them fast track Indian citizenship in six years, if they had entered the country before December 31, 2014.</p>.<p>Indian citizenship was earlier given either to those born in India or if they have resided in the country for a minimum of 11 years.</p>.<p>The petitioners questioned exclusion of the Muslims from three neighbouring countries and also not incorporating people from other countries, saying it violated the fundamental rights and secularism, among others.</p>
