When the Union government notified the rules under the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) on March 11, Kerala Chief MInister Pinarayi Vijayan promptly reiterated the state government’s stand that the Act will not be implemented in the state. A day later, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin also followed suit, announcing that the Act, which “goes against the unity of the country” will not be implemented in the state.
The question on everyone’s mind was — how practical are the declarations of the two leaders, given that citizenship is a subject that falls under the Union List in the Constitution?
A close look at the Union Home Ministry’s notification and order stated March 11 will tell us that there is little that state governments can do to prevent the implementation of the CAA.
A new section concerned with citizenship through naturalisation or registration was inserted to the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019. The first subsection of the new section 6 (B) confers on the Union government or an authority appointed by it the powers to grant a certificate of registration or certificate of naturalisation to any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, or Pakistan, who entered India on or before December 31, 2014.
On Monday, March 11, the Union government notified the rules for CAA. According to the Rules, the authority that can grant a certificate of registration or certificate of naturalisation is not a single officer but an Empowered Committee. Each state or Union Territory will have one Empowered Committee. Applications for citizenship should be made to the Empowered Committee through District Level Committees, headed by Designated Officers.
While it is the Empowered Committee that scrutinises and approves applications, it is the District Level Committee under the Designated Officer who verifies the documents and administer to the applicant the oath of allegiance as well as sign the oath of allegiance.
After it issued the rules through a notification, the Union Home Ministry, on march 11 itself, issued an order in which it stated the composition of the two committees.
The catch is that both committees are headed by and composed of employees of the Union government. For instance, the Designated Officer will be a jurisdictional Senior Superintendent or Superintendent of Post. The Postal Department falls under the Union Ministry of Communications.
The other members of the District Level Committees are:
(i) District Informatics Officer or District Informatics Assistant of the district concerned
(ii) nominee of the Union government
(iii) two invitees
(a) a representative not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar or equivalent from the Office of District Collector
(b) jurisdictional Station Master of Railways, subject to availability.
The Empowered Committee, on the other hand, is headed by the Director (Census Operations) of the state or Union Territory concerned. This official falls under the Office of the Registrar General of India, which in turn falls under the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.
The other members of the Empowered Committee are:
(i) an officer in the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India
(ii) jurisdictional Foreigners Regional Registration Officer concerned
(iii) the State Informatics Officer of National Informatics Centre of the state or Union Territory concerned
(iv) Postmaster General of the state or Union Territory concerned or a Postal Officer nominated by the PostMaster General not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India; (v) two invitees
(a) a representative from the office of Principal Secretary (Home) or Additional Chief Secretary (Home) of the state government or Union Territory concerned
(b) a representative of the jurisdictional Divisional Railway Manager of Railways.
What this effectively means is that no officer under the state government occupies a decision making role in the granting of citizenship to applicants. With no officials who are bound to follow state government orders, the state governments’ hands are tied in all matters concerning the implementation of the CAA. Even if there was a direct involvement of state government employees, the state does not have the power to ask them to not implement a law promulgated by the Union government.
That is why, while the declarations of Chief Ministers Pinarayi Vijayan and MK Stalin that the Act will not be implemented in their states may sound hopeful, the only option before them is to approach courts.