Question Description
The contentious Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 received the assent of the President of India and was made law earlier this month, sparking protests across the country. The Amendment Bill was introduced in Parliament by Home Minister Amit Shah on the premise that the specified religious minorities in the countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan have faced religious persecution, forcing people to flee those countries and take refuge in India.However, the words "religious persecution" or "persecution" does not find mention in the bare text of the amended Act. It merely provides that "...any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014…", and satisfies the conditions as specified in the Act, would be eligible to get Indian citizenship.Millions of citizens of undivided India belonging to various faiths were staying in the said areas of Pakistan and Bangladesh when India was partitioned in 1947.The constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh provide for a specific state religion. As a result, many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities have faced persecution on grounds of religion in those countries….Many such persons have fled to India to seek shelter…"It can be argued that by not including the words "religious persecution" in the Act, the Executive has kept with itself very wide powers, authorising it to give citizenship to any non-Muslim person who entered India before the cut-off date. The government tried to justify the non-exclusion of the words 'persecution' in the Act itself by saying that the reasons of the amendment can be drawn from the Statement of Objects and Reasons.Q. State has initiated the citizen identification exercise by which Yogesh was declared illegal immigrant.Yogesh furnished all his documents before the authority. However, authority misplaced all his documents. Keeping in mind the position of law, which of the following would be most correct?a)Yogesh has the burden of proof to prove that he is not an alien.b)Yogesh has the burden of proof to prove his citizenship.c)Yogesh need not prove his citizenship because he is a patriot with a heart and mind of an Indian.d)Authority has the burden of proof to disprove he is not a citizenship.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The contentious Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 received the assent of the President of India and was made law earlier this month, sparking protests across the country. The Amendment Bill was introduced in Parliament by Home Minister Amit Shah on the premise that the specified religious minorities in the countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan have faced religious persecution, forcing people to flee those countries and take refuge in India.However, the words "religious persecution" or "persecution" does not find mention in the bare text of the amended Act. It merely provides that "...any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014…", and satisfies the conditions as specified in the Act, would be eligible to get Indian citizenship.Millions of citizens of undivided India belonging to various faiths were staying in the said areas of Pakistan and Bangladesh when India was partitioned in 1947.The constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh provide for a specific state religion. As a result, many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities have faced persecution on grounds of religion in those countries….Many such persons have fled to India to seek shelter…"It can be argued that by not including the words "religious persecution" in the Act, the Executive has kept with itself very wide powers, authorising it to give citizenship to any non-Muslim person who entered India before the cut-off date. The government tried to justify the non-exclusion of the words 'persecution' in the Act itself by saying that the reasons of the amendment can be drawn from the Statement of Objects and Reasons.Q. State has initiated the citizen identification exercise by which Yogesh was declared illegal immigrant.Yogesh furnished all his documents before the authority. However, authority misplaced all his documents. Keeping in mind the position of law, which of the following would be most correct?a)Yogesh has the burden of proof to prove that he is not an alien.b)Yogesh has the burden of proof to prove his citizenship.c)Yogesh need not prove his citizenship because he is a patriot with a heart and mind of an Indian.d)Authority has the burden of proof to disprove he is not a citizenship.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The contentious Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 received the assent of the President of India and was made law earlier this month, sparking protests across the country. The Amendment Bill was introduced in Parliament by Home Minister Amit Shah on the premise that the specified religious minorities in the countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan have faced religious persecution, forcing people to flee those countries and take refuge in India.However, the words "religious persecution" or "persecution" does not find mention in the bare text of the amended Act. It merely provides that "...any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014…", and satisfies the conditions as specified in the Act, would be eligible to get Indian citizenship.Millions of citizens of undivided India belonging to various faiths were staying in the said areas of Pakistan and Bangladesh when India was partitioned in 1947.The constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh provide for a specific state religion. As a result, many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities have faced persecution on grounds of religion in those countries….Many such persons have fled to India to seek shelter…"It can be argued that by not including the words "religious persecution" in the Act, the Executive has kept with itself very wide powers, authorising it to give citizenship to any non-Muslim person who entered India before the cut-off date. The government tried to justify the non-exclusion of the words 'persecution' in the Act itself by saying that the reasons of the amendment can be drawn from the Statement of Objects and Reasons.Q. State has initiated the citizen identification exercise by which Yogesh was declared illegal immigrant.Yogesh furnished all his documents before the authority. However, authority misplaced all his documents. Keeping in mind the position of law, which of the following would be most correct?a)Yogesh has the burden of proof to prove that he is not an alien.b)Yogesh has the burden of proof to prove his citizenship.c)Yogesh need not prove his citizenship because he is a patriot with a heart and mind of an Indian.d)Authority has the burden of proof to disprove he is not a citizenship.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The contentious Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 received the assent of the President of India and was made law earlier this month, sparking protests across the country. The Amendment Bill was introduced in Parliament by Home Minister Amit Shah on the premise that the specified religious minorities in the countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan have faced religious persecution, forcing people to flee those countries and take refuge in India.However, the words "religious persecution" or "persecution" does not find mention in the bare text of the amended Act. It merely provides that "...any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014…", and satisfies the conditions as specified in the Act, would be eligible to get Indian citizenship.Millions of citizens of undivided India belonging to various faiths were staying in the said areas of Pakistan and Bangladesh when India was partitioned in 1947.The constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh provide for a specific state religion. As a result, many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities have faced persecution on grounds of religion in those countries….Many such persons have fled to India to seek shelter…"It can be argued that by not including the words "religious persecution" in the Act, the Executive has kept with itself very wide powers, authorising it to give citizenship to any non-Muslim person who entered India before the cut-off date. The government tried to justify the non-exclusion of the words 'persecution' in the Act itself by saying that the reasons of the amendment can be drawn from the Statement of Objects and Reasons.Q. State has initiated the citizen identification exercise by which Yogesh was declared illegal immigrant.Yogesh furnished all his documents before the authority. However, authority misplaced all his documents. Keeping in mind the position of law, which of the following would be most correct?a)Yogesh has the burden of proof to prove that he is not an alien.b)Yogesh has the burden of proof to prove his citizenship.c)Yogesh need not prove his citizenship because he is a patriot with a heart and mind of an Indian.d)Authority has the burden of proof to disprove he is not a citizenship.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The contentious Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 received the assent of the President of India and was made law earlier this month, sparking protests across the country. The Amendment Bill was introduced in Parliament by Home Minister Amit Shah on the premise that the specified religious minorities in the countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan have faced religious persecution, forcing people to flee those countries and take refuge in India.However, the words "religious persecution" or "persecution" does not find mention in the bare text of the amended Act. It merely provides that "...any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014…", and satisfies the conditions as specified in the Act, would be eligible to get Indian citizenship.Millions of citizens of undivided India belonging to various faiths were staying in the said areas of Pakistan and Bangladesh when India was partitioned in 1947.The constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh provide for a specific state religion. As a result, many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities have faced persecution on grounds of religion in those countries….Many such persons have fled to India to seek shelter…"It can be argued that by not including the words "religious persecution" in the Act, the Executive has kept with itself very wide powers, authorising it to give citizenship to any non-Muslim person who entered India before the cut-off date. The government tried to justify the non-exclusion of the words 'persecution' in the Act itself by saying that the reasons of the amendment can be drawn from the Statement of Objects and Reasons.Q. State has initiated the citizen identification exercise by which Yogesh was declared illegal immigrant.Yogesh furnished all his documents before the authority. However, authority misplaced all his documents. Keeping in mind the position of law, which of the following would be most correct?a)Yogesh has the burden of proof to prove that he is not an alien.b)Yogesh has the burden of proof to prove his citizenship.c)Yogesh need not prove his citizenship because he is a patriot with a heart and mind of an Indian.d)Authority has the burden of proof to disprove he is not a citizenship.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The contentious Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 received the assent of the President of India and was made law earlier this month, sparking protests across the country. The Amendment Bill was introduced in Parliament by Home Minister Amit Shah on the premise that the specified religious minorities in the countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan have faced religious persecution, forcing people to flee those countries and take refuge in India.However, the words "religious persecution" or "persecution" does not find mention in the bare text of the amended Act. It merely provides that "...any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014…", and satisfies the conditions as specified in the Act, would be eligible to get Indian citizenship.Millions of citizens of undivided India belonging to various faiths were staying in the said areas of Pakistan and Bangladesh when India was partitioned in 1947.The constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh provide for a specific state religion. As a result, many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities have faced persecution on grounds of religion in those countries….Many such persons have fled to India to seek shelter…"It can be argued that by not including the words "religious persecution" in the Act, the Executive has kept with itself very wide powers, authorising it to give citizenship to any non-Muslim person who entered India before the cut-off date. The government tried to justify the non-exclusion of the words 'persecution' in the Act itself by saying that the reasons of the amendment can be drawn from the Statement of Objects and Reasons.Q. State has initiated the citizen identification exercise by which Yogesh was declared illegal immigrant.Yogesh furnished all his documents before the authority. However, authority misplaced all his documents. Keeping in mind the position of law, which of the following would be most correct?a)Yogesh has the burden of proof to prove that he is not an alien.b)Yogesh has the burden of proof to prove his citizenship.c)Yogesh need not prove his citizenship because he is a patriot with a heart and mind of an Indian.d)Authority has the burden of proof to disprove he is not a citizenship.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The contentious Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 received the assent of the President of India and was made law earlier this month, sparking protests across the country. The Amendment Bill was introduced in Parliament by Home Minister Amit Shah on the premise that the specified religious minorities in the countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan have faced religious persecution, forcing people to flee those countries and take refuge in India.However, the words "religious persecution" or "persecution" does not find mention in the bare text of the amended Act. It merely provides that "...any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014…", and satisfies the conditions as specified in the Act, would be eligible to get Indian citizenship.Millions of citizens of undivided India belonging to various faiths were staying in the said areas of Pakistan and Bangladesh when India was partitioned in 1947.The constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh provide for a specific state religion. As a result, many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities have faced persecution on grounds of religion in those countries….Many such persons have fled to India to seek shelter…"It can be argued that by not including the words "religious persecution" in the Act, the Executive has kept with itself very wide powers, authorising it to give citizenship to any non-Muslim person who entered India before the cut-off date. The government tried to justify the non-exclusion of the words 'persecution' in the Act itself by saying that the reasons of the amendment can be drawn from the Statement of Objects and Reasons.Q. State has initiated the citizen identification exercise by which Yogesh was declared illegal immigrant.Yogesh furnished all his documents before the authority. However, authority misplaced all his documents. Keeping in mind the position of law, which of the following would be most correct?a)Yogesh has the burden of proof to prove that he is not an alien.b)Yogesh has the burden of proof to prove his citizenship.c)Yogesh need not prove his citizenship because he is a patriot with a heart and mind of an Indian.d)Authority has the burden of proof to disprove he is not a citizenship.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The contentious Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 received the assent of the President of India and was made law earlier this month, sparking protests across the country. The Amendment Bill was introduced in Parliament by Home Minister Amit Shah on the premise that the specified religious minorities in the countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan have faced religious persecution, forcing people to flee those countries and take refuge in India.However, the words "religious persecution" or "persecution" does not find mention in the bare text of the amended Act. It merely provides that "...any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014…", and satisfies the conditions as specified in the Act, would be eligible to get Indian citizenship.Millions of citizens of undivided India belonging to various faiths were staying in the said areas of Pakistan and Bangladesh when India was partitioned in 1947.The constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh provide for a specific state religion. As a result, many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities have faced persecution on grounds of religion in those countries….Many such persons have fled to India to seek shelter…"It can be argued that by not including the words "religious persecution" in the Act, the Executive has kept with itself very wide powers, authorising it to give citizenship to any non-Muslim person who entered India before the cut-off date. The government tried to justify the non-exclusion of the words 'persecution' in the Act itself by saying that the reasons of the amendment can be drawn from the Statement of Objects and Reasons.Q. State has initiated the citizen identification exercise by which Yogesh was declared illegal immigrant.Yogesh furnished all his documents before the authority. However, authority misplaced all his documents. Keeping in mind the position of law, which of the following would be most correct?a)Yogesh has the burden of proof to prove that he is not an alien.b)Yogesh has the burden of proof to prove his citizenship.c)Yogesh need not prove his citizenship because he is a patriot with a heart and mind of an Indian.d)Authority has the burden of proof to disprove he is not a citizenship.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The contentious Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 received the assent of the President of India and was made law earlier this month, sparking protests across the country. The Amendment Bill was introduced in Parliament by Home Minister Amit Shah on the premise that the specified religious minorities in the countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan have faced religious persecution, forcing people to flee those countries and take refuge in India.However, the words "religious persecution" or "persecution" does not find mention in the bare text of the amended Act. It merely provides that "...any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014…", and satisfies the conditions as specified in the Act, would be eligible to get Indian citizenship.Millions of citizens of undivided India belonging to various faiths were staying in the said areas of Pakistan and Bangladesh when India was partitioned in 1947.The constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh provide for a specific state religion. As a result, many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities have faced persecution on grounds of religion in those countries….Many such persons have fled to India to seek shelter…"It can be argued that by not including the words "religious persecution" in the Act, the Executive has kept with itself very wide powers, authorising it to give citizenship to any non-Muslim person who entered India before the cut-off date. The government tried to justify the non-exclusion of the words 'persecution' in the Act itself by saying that the reasons of the amendment can be drawn from the Statement of Objects and Reasons.Q. State has initiated the citizen identification exercise by which Yogesh was declared illegal immigrant.Yogesh furnished all his documents before the authority. However, authority misplaced all his documents. Keeping in mind the position of law, which of the following would be most correct?a)Yogesh has the burden of proof to prove that he is not an alien.b)Yogesh has the burden of proof to prove his citizenship.c)Yogesh need not prove his citizenship because he is a patriot with a heart and mind of an Indian.d)Authority has the burden of proof to disprove he is not a citizenship.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.