NEW DELHI: The Centre on Tuesday responded to petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in the Supreme Court, asserting that it was a narrowly tailored law addressing problems in grant of citizenship to some communities persecuted on the basis of religion in neighbouring Islamic countries and assured it did not impact citizenship of Indians.Countering the allegation that CAA was discriminatory as it did not consider grant of citizenship to persecuted minority communities like Ahmadis, Shias, Bahaiis, Hazaras, Jews and Balochs, the Centre said, “CAA does not seek to recognise or seek to provide answers to all kinds of purported persecution that may be taking place across the world or that may have taken place previously anywhere in the world. CAA is a narrowly tailored legislation seeking to address the specific problem which awaited India’s attention for a solution since several decades.”Its 129-page affidavit termed CAA as a benign piece of legislation which seeks to provide a relaxation, in the nature of an amnesty, to specific communities from specified countries with a clear cut-off date. Terming its bulky affidavit as a “preliminary reply”, the Centre said CAA’s key mode of classification was identification of six communities — Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis and Christians — to provide them a limited exemption under the CAA.The Centre's affdiavit in the Supreme Court said Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh had Islam as state religion with “acknowledged religious persecution”.“History clearly depicts that persecuted minorities in the said three countries were left without any rights and the said historical injustice is sought to be remedied by the amendment without taking away or whittling down the right of any other person,” the Centre said. It added, “CAA does not impinge upon any existing right that may have existed prior to enactment of the amendment and further, in no manner whatsoever seeks to affect the legal, democratic or secular rights of any Indian citizen.”It said the existing regime for obtaining Indian citizenship remained untouched by CAA and “legal migration, on the basis of valid documents and visa, continues to be permissible from all countries of the world, including Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh”.“All foreigners, irrespective of their religion and living in these three countries or any other country, can legally migrate to India subject to fulfilment of conditions mentioned in the Citizenship Act, 1955, apply for and get Indian citizenship if found eligible,” the Centre said.Referring to scores of pleas filed by politicians, rights activists and even state governments to challenge the CAA, the Centre said it amounted to misuse of PIL instrument created by the SC for benefit of poor and downtrodden who have no voice or access to court. “Matters concerning the sovereign plenary power of Parliament, especially in regard to citizenship and the contours thereof, cannot be questioned before the SC by way of a public interest petition,” it said.“The cardinal principle of locus standi has been diluted by this (PIL) jurisprudence evolved by the SC only in limited fact situations which cannot be extrapolated to include the present constitutional challenge to the legislative measure of the Indian Parliament in the domain of issues concerning citizenship/immigration,” it added.On the petitioners’ reference to alleged violation of international covenants, and the purported move by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights seeking to be amicus in the SC, the Centre said, “India is neither a signatory nor has ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention or the 1967 Protocol on Territorial Asylum .”“The fundamental rights provisions of the Constitution, in the context of this case Articles 14 and 21, cannot be interpreted with reference to any international convention or treaty to which India is neither a signatory not it has ratified the same.” the Centre said. Assertion of petitioners that the principle of non-refoulement (non return of refugees) is a part of customary international law is erroneous in law.“The principle of non-refoulement cannot be derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.”