Supreme Court to hear pleas challenging CAA on December 6, Assam and Tripura to respond within three weeks

The Supreme Court (SC) on October 31 fixed December 6 for the hearing of petitions challenging the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA).

In addition to this, the top court granted two weeks to Assam and Tripura to file their responses.

Earlier on October 30, the Centre urged the apex court to dismiss pleas challenging the validity of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), as it doesn't encourage ''illegal migration'' and is a ''focused law'' which grants citizenship only to members belongings to six communities who came to on or before December 31, 2014.

In a 150-page affidavit, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said, ''Parliament is competent to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India as provided in Article 245 (1) of The  Constitution of India.

''It is a focused law that has a specific cut-off date of December 31, 2014. Only migrants belonging to the six specified communities from the three countries who had entered India on or before December 21, 2014, will be covered by the provisions of this Amendment Act,'' MHA joint secretary, Sumant Singh, said in the affidavit.

Singh in the affidavit further said that CAA, 2019 facilitates the grant of citizenship to migrants belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who entered India on or before December 31, 2014.

He further informed in the affidavit that the law applied to those who have been exempted by the central government under the provisions of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, and other provisions and the rules which fall under the Foreigners Act, 1946.

''It is respectfully submitted that the CAA does not in any way encourage illegal migration into Assam and therefore the petition that it has the potential to encourage illegal migration into Assam is unfounded,'' it added.

The affidavit further read that the petitions are liable to be dismissed and reserved its right to file a more detailed affidavit at a later stage.