The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, has filed an intervention in the Supreme Court on the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and informed India’s Permanent Mission in Geneva about it, the Ministry of External Affairs said Tuesday.
The office of UNHCHR has taken a stern view on the CAA and the ongoing protests in India. In the global report at the 43rd session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva on February 27, Bachelet had said, “Citizenship Amendment Act adopted last December is of great concern. Indians in huge numbers, and from all communities, have expressed – in a mostly peaceful manner – their opposition to the Act, and support for the country’s long tradition of secularism.”
She had also expressed concern about “police inaction” during the Delhi riots.
The same day that she presented this report, senior diplomat and Secretary (West) in the Ministry of External Affairs, Vikas Swarup, had met her and later tweeted, “Reaffirming India’s commitment to ensuring human rights for all citizens. Had a good meeting with UN High Commissioner for Human Rights HE Michelle Bachelet.”
“The Citizenship Amendment Act is an internal matter and concerns the sovereign right of the Indian parliament to make laws. We strongly believe no foreign party has any locus standi on issues pertaining to India’s sovereignty,” the ministry has said.
The MEA response went on to assert that the CAA, which the government says will help non-Muslim refugees fleeing religious persecution, was “constitutionally valid”, was consistent with “our constitutional values” and upheld human rights values.
“It is reflective of our long-standing national commitment in respect of human rights issues arising from the tragedy of the Partition of India,” the ministry said.
In January, the court, hearing a massive 143 petitions challenging the legal validity of the CAA, declined to put the law on hold and, instead, gave the centre four weeks to respond.
The petitioners, who include political parties like the Congress, the DMK, the Indian Union Muslim League and some Left parties, had argued the law was illegal and violated basic secular structure of the Constitution.