In a major jolt to non-BJP Chief Ministers claiming CAA will not be implemented, the MHA officials have emphasised in unambiguous terms that implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act is not a matter of choice. Snubbing the opposition as “political posturing”, under Amit Shah, the Home Ministry officials have made it clear that it is not for the states to take or leave, but under the Constitutional scheme of things, the Citizenship Amendment Act will have to be implemented.
The Union Home Ministry officials have made it clear that once the Centre issues the notification to bring the amendments into force, the state governments will have to abide by them under the Constitutional scheme of things. The MHA officials have therefore dealt a severe blow to the ambitions of the opposition CMs to foment trouble in the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act.
Ever since the Citizenship Amendment Bill was tabled in the Lok Sabha, vested interest have indulged in blatant rumouring against the legislation. There has been a relentless campaign to paint the legislation as communal and unconstitutional based on mistruths, myths and sheer propaganda. Such has been the hostility to this benign attempt of conferring citizenship to the minorities persecuted in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh that several non-BJP Chief Ministers went to the extent of threatening to defy the implementation of this law on the bizarre argument that the legislation is unconstitutional.
On Friday, Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Kamal Nath and Chhattisgarh CM Bhupesh Baghel declared that they will not implement the Citizenship Amendment Act. Earlier, the Punjab CM, Amarinder Singh, another Congress leader had made a similar declaration. West Bengal CM, Mamata Banerjee had also expectedly declared that the Citizenship Amendment Act would not be implemented in West Bengal. Kerala CM, Pinarayi Vijayan had also said that the Amendment will not be given effect in the state, which considers it to be “unconstitutional”.
Ironically, it is illegal and unconstitutional on the part of a state to defy or block implementation of a Parliamentary law on such flimsy and make-believe grounds.
The fact remains that it is not for the state governments to consider whether a Central law is constitutional. In fact, to test the constitutionality of a legislation is not at all within the domain of the executive or the legislature. It is a power conferred upon the constitutional Courts of the country. By trying to usurp this power, such state governments and Chief Ministers are clearly trying to usurp powers which fall exclusively in the judiciary’s domain. It is, therefore, an utterly ridiculous argument on the part of a state to defy the implementation of a law because the state considers it “unconstitutional”.
The manner in which the Home Ministry officials have clarified the correct position should deter the opposition CMs from making such disgusting contentions against the Amendment from here on. The centre should, however, remain alert with respect to such states. The opposition has made the CAA a point of ego conflict with the Centre. They might go to any extent to defy its implementation. If the such state governments continue to create obstacles in bringing the CAA into effect, the Centre must not desist from considering the option of imposing President’s rule in such states. If a state government patently blocks the implementation of a law in its territory, then its functioning clearly militates against the constitutional provisions which would warrant imposition of President’s rule.