Passage Based Questions: Legal Aptitude - 15 | Passage Based Questions for CLAT Preparation PDF Download

Directions : Read the following passage and answer the questions.
The idealogues in the Muslim League and in the then minority Hindu Mahasabha saw it as a necessary move, that Muslims who went from India to Pakistan and Bangladesh, and Hindus coming from there to India were moving in the natural direction. While forced to accept Partition because Muslim League under Jinnah made it difficult for any other solution at the time, Congress rejected the idea of a religion-based state. The non-religious base of the state in India was conclusively established in the Constitution in Articles 14, 15 and 16.
What CAA 2019 does is discriminate on the basis of religion. The Citizenship Act of 1955 did not provide the rationale that India is the natural homeland of Hindus. The amendment to the Citizenship Act in 1985 following the Assam Accord provided relief for those found to be illegal immigrants in Section 6A(4), where  all rights and obligation of a citizen will be recognised for such a person but he or she will not have the right to vote for 10 years. There was really no need for the latest amendment because the issue of illegal immigrants was taken care of.
The argument of Shah that CAA 2019 does not take away the citizenship rights of Muslims and therefore it cannot be called anti-Muslim is weak because the CAA remains discriminatory. The courts will have to decide whether a discriminatory law which does not affect Muslim’s citizenship rights satisfies Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. It cannot be argued that the right to equality is for those who are citizens, and that it does not apply to the issue of who can be offered a citizenship.
The argument that after gaining citizenship the religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan will be on an equal footing with all other Indian citizens, including Muslims, is flawed in principle as well as in law. The affected religious minorities from the three neighbouring Islamic states could have been granted citizenship without the proviso of persecuted religious minorities. The implication of persecuted religious minorities from these three countries is far more complicated than conceived by the BJP lawmakers.
First, it points an accusing finger at the polity of these three countries, and it would be difficult to maintain cordial relations with them after this. Second, India can stand up for the rights of the religious minorities in these countries even as it does for the rights of Sri Lankan Tamils or Fiji Indians.