DM Monitoring
NEW YORK: In a significant development, the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner (OHCHR) filed an intervention application in the Supreme Court in one of the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019.
The Ministry of External Affairs on Tuesday criticized this move by the UN body.In a press release, the MEA spokesperson said that India’s Permanent Mission in Geneva was informed on Monday evening by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that her Office had filed an Intervention Application in the Supreme Court of India. The MEA said that the Citizenship Amendment Act is an “internal matter” of India and concerns the “sovereign right of the Indian Parliament to make laws”.
“We strongly believe that no foreign party has any locus standi on issues pertaining to India’s sovereignty”, MEA spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said. The intervention application is filed in the writ petition filed by retired IFS officer Deb Mukharji challenging the CAA.
The intervention application filed by Ms Michelle Bacehelet Jeria, states that the UN body wished to intervene as “amicus curaie” in the matter by virtue of its mandate to “protect and promote all human right and to conduct necessary advocacy in that regard… pursuant to UN General Assembly resolution 48/141”.
The OHCHR acknowledged that the CAA can potentially benefit thousands of migrants and that it had a “commendable purpose”. The applicant also clarified that its intervention should not be seen as an endorsement of the allegations raised by the petitioners in the proceedings before the SC. At the same time, it said that the CAA raised certain important questions on international human rights law and its application to migrants, especially refugees. Referring to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights (ICESR), the applicant said:
“Under international human rights law,States must respect and ensure that migrants in their territory or under their jurisdiction or effective control receive equal and non- discriminatory treatment, regardless of their legal status and the documentation they possess”. The enjoyment of Covenant rights is not limited to citizens of States Parties but must also be available to all individuals, regardless of nationality or statelessness, such as asylum seekers, refugees, migrant workers and other persons.
Further,”States must ensure that their legislation, policies, and practice regulating access to citizenship and its application comply with the obligations enshrined in article 26 of the ICCPR, by providing migrants in the same situation equal protection as well as protection from discrimination, including on the basis of religion”.The OCHR stated that question also arises as to “whether the differentiation made with regard to persecution on religious grounds, as opposed to other grounds, is sufficiently objective and reasonable, in particular taking into account the prohibition of refoulement and India’s obligations under international human rights law”.
In this regard, it observed that while reducing the risk of refoulement for certain communities, the CAA unequally places other communities at such risk. “Without prejudice to the power of States to establish migration policies as a manifestation of their sovereignty, including.measures in favour of migrants that may be subject to persecution and other serious human rights violations/irreparable harm in their countries of origin or previous residence, States must ensure migration governance measures are in accordance with international human rights law, including the right to equality before the law, equal protection of the law and the right to nondiscrimination and the absolute and non-derogable principle of non-refoulement.”
