The Supreme Court begins the final hearing of appeals challenging the legality of the CAA from May 5
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Thursday fixed the schedule for the final hearing of a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA), for the week beginning May 5, 2026.Petitioners challenging the CAA will be heard on May 5 and for half a day on May 6. The respondent Union Government, which supports the legislation, will present its arguments during the remaining half of the day on May 6 and continuing on May 7.The petitions challenge the law on the grounds that it applies to members of six specific religious minorities – Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian, while excluding other allegedly persecuted minorities such as the Rohingya in Bangladesh and the Ahmadiyya in Pakistan.
Amit Shah blames infiltration on Muslim population growth, supports CAA as a moral responsibility
The bench also noted that separate hearings relating to issues specific to the states of Assam and Tripura will be held immediately after the conclusion of arguments in the main batch of cases. The full hearing is expected to conclude by May 12.“We have given liberty to record any other materials and documents in the written submissions, if any, within four weeks. However, there will be no (fresh) writ petition on the written submissions already recorded,” the court said.
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 seeks to fast-track access to Indian citizenship for members of six specified minority communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan who entered India on or before December 31, 2014, citing religious persecution in those countries.It was the law; Notified on December 12, 2019, and entered into force on January 10, 2020.The Supreme Court, in its order dated March 19, 2024, refused to immediately stay the CAA Rules. The petitioners requested an immediate freeze, fearing that if citizenship were granted during the proceeding, the process would be “irreversible.” On the contrary, the Public Protector requested a period of four weeks to submit a formal response.During the proceedings, the court took note of petitioners’ concerns but set a strict timeline for filing written submissions, limiting both petitioners and the union to five-page briefs to expedite the hearing.
