CAA reflects our commitment on rights: Government

NEW DELHI: For the first time in India’s judicial history, a United Nations body — the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) — on Tuesday sought to intervene as amicus curiae , or friend of the court, to assist the Supreme Court in adjudicating the constitutional validity of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). The UNHCHR said while CAA has a “worthy and commendable objective”, it appears to discriminate against persecuted Muslim communities.The ministry of external affairs swiftly hit back, saying it was an “internal matter” and that “no foreign party has any locus standi on issues pertaining to India’s sovereignty” and “the Indian Parliament’s right to make law”.Intervening in a petition filed by former Indian high commissioner to Bangladesh Deb Mukharji, who has challenged CAA, UNHCHR Michelle Bachelet Jeria stated, “CAA can potentially benefit thousands of migrants in an irregular situation, including refugees, who might otherwise face obstacles in obtaining protection from persecution in their countries of origin, including through the grant of citizenship. This is commendable.” However, she added, the law “raises a number of issues related to India’s wider human rights obligations in the context of fundamental principle of non-refoulement, that is no forced repatriation of refugees to their home country.”Countering United Nations high commissioner for human rights (UNHCHR) Michelle Bachelet Jeria’s statement against CAA, MEA spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said, “We are clear that CAA is constitutionally valid and complies with all requirements of our constitutional values. It is reflective of our longstanding national commitment in respect of human rights issues arising from the tragedy of the Partition of India.’’“India is a democratic country governed by the rule of law. We all have utmost respect for and full trust in our independent judiciary. We are confident that our sound and legally sustainable position would be vindicated by the Supreme Court,” Kumar added.The government’s reaction came after India’s permanent mission in Geneva was informed by the Office of the UNHCHR that it was filing an intervention plea against CAA in the SC seeking to present itself as an amicus curiae. SC officials could not confirm if the intervention application of Jeira, who was Chi- le’s first woman president, had actually been filed. An official in the registry said, “No UNHCHR application has been filed on Tuesday in Deb Mukharji’s petition.” A spokesperson for the UN body said the high commissioner intended to shortly submit an amicus curiae brief on CAA in the SC in accordance with court’s procedures.Jeria said she and her predecessors “have filed amicus curiae briefs on issues of particular public importance within proceedings before a diverse range of international and national jurisdictions, including at the international level — European Court of Human Rights, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, International Criminal Court — and at national level — US Supreme Court and final appeal courts of States in Asia and Latin America.”She clarified that though she intends to intervene in CAA proceedings as an amicus curiae in the SC, she would not give up her diplomatic privileges and immunity. This means she would not submit to the SC’s jurisdiction and not be liable for any adverse order against her.Referring to CAA promising expeditious citizenship for persecuted minorities, Jeria said, “The factual basis for the arguments provided in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the introduction of CAB for such preferential treatment, also find support in pronouncements by the UN human rights mechanism regarding the situation of religious minorities in Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan.”“However, recent reports by the UN human rights treaty bodies, special procedures and other mechanism ascertain that there exist a number of religious groups considered religious minorities in these countries, especially of the Muslim faith, including Ahmadi, Hazara and Shia Muslims whose situations would warrant protection on the same basis as that provided in the preferential treatment proposed by the CAA,” she said. However, the UNHCHR is silent whether it had similarly moved Supreme Courts of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh seeking protection of these groups.“The 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,” she said.Referring to India championing the right to ‘equal protection of law’ in 1949 for ‘International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’, Jeria said, “It is remarkable that after 60 years, this very issue lies at the heart of the SC deliberations as it examines CAA. This presents SC with a historic and unique opportunity to give practical meaning to this fundamental right (equal protection of law) at the domestic level.”While requesting SC to take into account international human rights laws, norms and standards in proceedings relating to CAA, she gave an example of similar interventions by UNHCHR in judicial forums of other countries in human right issues.While a special rapporteur, an independent expert appointed to work on behalf of the UN, had earlier filed a plea in India’s Supreme Court on the Rohingya issue, this is probably the first time a UN body has sought to intervene in the top court on a domestic law.Jeria, who has a background of human rights activism and represented the socialist party in Chile, has been very critical of CAA since it was passed by Parliament in December and also the government’s handling of J&K. Speaking at the 43rd session of the Human Rights Council last week, she expressed concern over reports of police inaction in the face of attacks against Muslims by other groups, as well as previous reports of excessive use of force by police against peaceful protesters.On Kashmir , she had said that while life had been disrupted by heavy military presence, no steps had been taken to address allegations of excessive use of force and other serious human rights violations by security forces.India has in recent weeks pushed back against Turkey, Malaysia and entities of the US Congress for criticising provisions of CAA.