Guwahati: The Supreme Court did not discuss the issue of the cut-off year for the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) on Wednesday. This comes after the Supreme Court decided to hear the cases relating to the political crisis in Maharashtra before considering the petitions filed in connection with the topic.
The case was not brought up in the Chief Justice’s constitutional tribunal today due to the ongoing hearing in the Maharashtra affair.
One of the primary petitioners, Matiur Rahman of the Asom Sanmilita Mahasangha, also commented on the matter and expressed the hope that the top court will decide in favour of using 1951 as the cut-off year for the statute, which has been the subject of much debate ever since it was passed.
He said, “We hope that the Supreme Court will rule in favour of 1951 being the cut-off year.”
On the other hand, the chief advisor of All Assam Students’ Union (AASU), Samujjal Bhattacharjya said, “AASU wants a permanent solution to foreigners issue in accordance with tripartite Assam agreement.”
It should be noted that the Supreme Court initially agreed to hear the issue in December of last year, but deferred doing so until after the holiday break.
The governments of Assam and Tripura came under fire for failing to timely submit the undertaking related to the problem from regional parties like AASU and the Asom Jatiyatabadi Yuba Chatra Parishad (AJYCP).
The parties from Assam, who are the main proponents of the contentious citizenship law, have expressed hope that the Supreme Court will uphold justice and prevent the northeastern states from being subject to its provisions.
The Supreme Court had earlier directed, “Having noted that there are various pleas projecting multiple views, resolution of entire controversy can be achieved if two or three matters are taken as lead matters and convenience compilations of all counsels are prepared well in advance. This will make proceedings convenient. Pleadings in IUML are complete and were filed by Adv Pallavi Pratap. We appoint Ms Pratap and Mr Kanu Agrawal as nodal counsel. These counsels are requested to have common compilation of all relevant documents.”