The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a reply from the Central government to a batch of petitions seeking a stay on the operation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 and the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024 that provides for the grant of Indian citizenship to the Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsis, Buddhist, Jains, who came to India on or before December 31, 2014, to escape religious persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

Issuing the notice to the Central government and seeking its response, a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra posted the matter for further hearing on April 9, 2025.

Even as lawyers appearing for the petitioners were persistent on the stay of Rules in the meantime, the bench didn’t pass any such order.

Seeking four weeks to file a “detailed” reply, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central government, told the court that there were 237 petitions and 20 applications. However, senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for lead petitioner Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) told the bench that the reply to these petitions has already been filed as notice in these matters was issued way back on January 22, 2020.

Sibal told the bench that once the citizenship is granted, it cannot be reversed. If they have waited till now, they can wait till July or whenever this court decides this matter. There is no great hurry.

As Solicitor General Tushar Mehta hammered the point that no prejudice would be caused to any of the petitioners and none’s citizenship is going to be affected by enforcing CAA, senior advocate Indira Jaising said that it is a far more vital issue if the constitutionality of the CAA.

Senior advocate Jaising said if they are granted citizenship, they would get voting rights.

Distancing himself from this, Sibal said far more serious issues are involved.

Asking what was the sudden urgency to notify the Rules nearly four years and three months after CAA was passed by the parliament, Sibal told the bench, “What’s the urgency after four years and three months? If any process of citizenship starts and people get citizenship it will be irreversible. So, the process shouldn’t start. Once you grant citizenship, you can’t take it back.”

The petitioners then said that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta be asked to give an assurance that the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024 Rules will not be implemented and citizenship will not be granted till the petitions are pending before the top court. However, Mehta refused to make any statement.

In an effort to persuade the bench to stay the operation of CAA and CAR, Indira Jaising urged the court to say that any grant of citizenship, during the pendency of the matter, would be subject to the outcome of the adjudication of the challenge to CAA/CAR. She said, “We cannot go on with hope and trust jurisprudence anymore.”

While CJI Chandrachud responded by saying, “But the infrastructure of State level committee, etc., is not in place,” the Solicitor General Mehta opposed this option by senior advocate Jaising as well.

According to the observation by the CJI Chandrachud, Sibal told the bench that if something happens, they will approach the top court.

Appearing for one of the immigrants, senior advocate Ranjit Kumar said, “I am from Balochistan, I came to India because I was persecuted. If I am given citizenship, how is it affecting them?”

A day after the Central government issued the Rules for the CAA on March 11, Kerala-based Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) approached the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the implementation of the Rules and the 2019 law as well.

Seeking the stay of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA)and the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024 (CAR) notified on March 11 – for enforcing the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, the Indian Union Muslim League has sought that no coercive steps be taken against persons belonging to Muslim community, who have been excluded from the benefits of the CAA.

On December 12, 2019, the Indian Union Muslim League was the first to approach the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.

The Indian Union Muslim League in its challenge to the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules 2024, has stated that the Rules create a “highly truncated and fast-tracked process” for the grant of citizenships to non-Muslim migrants from the specified countries, thereby making operational a “manifestly arbitrary and discriminatory” regime solely on the ground of religious identity.

The IUML has, in its petition challenging the Rules, also stated that the Rules are manifestly arbitrary and create an unfair advantage in favour of a class of persons solely on the grounds of their religious identity, which is impermissible under Article 14 (Equality before law) and 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth) of the Indian Constitution.

Apart from the IUML, the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI), the Leader of Opposition in the Assam Assembly, Debabrata Saika, and Congress MP from Assam, Abdul Khaleque, and others have also approached the Supreme Court seeking a stay on Rules.