12^th Dec. 2019

In India, The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 amends the Citizenship Act of 1955 to give eligibility for Indian citizenship to illegal migrants who are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, and who entered India on or before 31 December 2014. The bill does not include Muslims.

The passage of the bill caused protests in India. Internet was shut down in the north-eastern state of Assam and curfew declared in Assam and Tripura due to huge protests. However, the army had to be called in to deploy as protestors defied those curfews. Railway services were also suspended.

The main opposition to Bill is that it is against secular constitution of India. The Preamble serves as an introduction to the Constitution. The Preamble was amended by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act in 1976, which determined to constitute India into a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, and Democratic republic. It secures justice, liberty, equality to all the citizens of India and promotes fraternity among the people. The term secular in the Constitution of India means that all the religions in India get equal respect, protection and support from the State. Articles 25 to 28 in Part III of the Constitution guarantee Freedom of Religion as a Fundamental Right.

In my view the bill does not violate the Constitution of India as these provisions are applicable to citizen of India and not for those who have yet to become citizen.

The illegal migrants from Bangladesh who are Muslim, living in border states of India are protecting most as they are likely to be deported and are not included in National Citizenship Register after their illegal entry in India since long ago.

The National Register of Citizens is a register maintained by the Government of India containing identification of Indian citizens of the Assam state. The register was initially, specifically made for Assam state of India. The register was first prepared after the 1951 Census of India and since then it has not been updated until recently. The process of updating of state's part of NRC in the state of Assam started in the year 2013 when the Supreme Court of India passed an order for its updating. Since then, the Supreme Court of India has been monitoring it continuously. This has created crisis of identity of citizenship in Assam.

The bill was also criticized by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. USCIRF is a U.S. federal government commission created by the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) of 1998. This is contradictory to the 2019 USCIRF report, the chairman Tenzin Dorjee disagreed with the commission's designation of India as a CPC citing having lived in India for 30 years as a religious refugee stating that "India is an open society with a robust democratic and judiciary system. India is a great civilization, and since ancient times she has been a country of multifaith, multilingual, and multicultural / diversity.

United State of America is also struggling with problem of illegal migration and so far not able to resolve this problem and taking small steps like erecting walls on border; Deferred Action. USA has not taken any legislative step to grant citizenship to illegal migrant or identify such illegal migrants in Census of 2020 as Court did not allow question on citizenship in US Census of 2020.

24^th April 2019

Sexual Harassment at workplace – Supreme Court of India

A woman working as assistant in apex court in India, on oath in details, accused the present Chief Justice of India Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi of sexual harassment. She further in details accused Judge for orchestrated a campaign of retaliation against her and her family when she refused his advances last October 2018. Judge has denied the charges against him, saying there were forces at work to “deactivate” the position of chief justice. The complainant woman and his other family members were dismissed from their respective jobs as victimization. The Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association, representing lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court of India, have been critical of the Chief Justice’s handling of the case against him; when Judge himself is judging cause against himself. One lawyer subsequently has alleged on oath that there is conspiracy against Judges. Bench of judges is examining this affidavit on conspiracy and summoned chiefs of the Central Bureau of Investigation, Intelligence Bureau and Delhi Police in chamber to talk about conspiracy theory. Union minister Arun Jaitley on Sunday in his Facebook post said lending shoulder to Judge “completely unverified allegations coming from a disgruntled person with a not-so-glorious track record is aiding the process of destabilization of the institution of the Chief Justice of India.

The events and views expressed above, shows an inquisitive fact about what is cooking up in apex court. The allegation of woman cannot be ignored and must be examined without any biased. Judge is a human being who can be susceptible to wrong doings. The allegations of sexual harassment against Judge holding such high court is not new. Earlier a Law intern alleged sexual harassment by Justice AK Ganguly, a Judge in Supreme Court of India which Judge refuted. A three-member panel of SC judges had indicted Justice AK Ganguly on December 6, 2013 saying 'prima facie' found the allegations correct.

The complainant’s affidavit raises serious allegations of sexual harassment and abuse of power of the office of CJI. The CJI must also explain the larger conspiracy angle he attached to the allegations – who would attack the judiciary and why?

The Supreme Court cannot continue in silence and wish away the complaint. The Internal Complaints Committee set up to deal with sexual harassment must look into the issue immediately. It is incumbent on the senior-most judges to ensure fair and transparent proceedings in the matter.

There is need to revive The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill which 15^th Parliament of India in 2014 could not pass, which tries to lay down enforceable standards of conduct for judges.  It also requires judges to declare details of their and their family members' assets and liabilities.  Importantly, it creates mechanisms to allow any person to complain against judges on grounds of misbehavior or incapacity and subsequent discharge from the office. At present, even if allegations against a Judge are found to be true, Judge cannot be removed from office without impeachment proceedings in Parliament of India. Impeachment is a difficult process when parliamentarian are divided in fractions. Since independence in 1947, I do not think if any judge was ever impeached. I cannot believe that all Judges are morally correct and are competent to hold public office till retirement when society is full of corrupt practices.