The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has filed an intervention in the Indian Supreme Court on the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), saying that the new law "raises a number of issues India's wider human rights obligations in the context of the fundamental principle of non-refoulment."
India has strongly objected to the move, saying that the CAA is an internal matter of India and concerns the sovereign right of the Indian Parliament to make laws.
India's Permanent Mission in Geneva was informed about the UNHRC's decision, following which the Ministry of External Affairs issued a strong statement objecting to the move.
"Our Permanent Mission in Geneva was informed yesterday evening by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (Michelle Bachelet) that her office had filed an intervention application in the Supreme Court of India in respect to the 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act," MEA Spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said.
"We strongly believe that no foreign party has any locus standi on issues pertaining to India's sovereignty," he said.
India is clear that the CAA is constitutionally valid and complies with all requirements of its constitutional values, Kumar said.
"It is reflective of our long-standing national commitment in respect of human rights issues arising from the tragedy of the Partition of India," he said.
"India is a democratic country governed by the rule of law. We all have the utmost respect for and full trust in our independent judiciary. We are confident that our sound and legally sustainable position will be vindicated by the Supreme Court," he said.
Calling the move to provide expedited citizenship to minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan a "worthy and commendable objective", the UNHRC said it raises a number of issues related to India's wider human rights obligations in the context of the fundamental principle of non-refoulement."
"The principle of non-refoulement is enshrined in international human rights law, international refugee law, international humanitarian law and customary international law," it said.
According to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the principle of non-refoulement says that “no contracting state shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”
"For the purpose of this intervention application, in this present case, the question is therefore not a matter of the general purpose of the law, on the basis of their religion is sufficiently objective and reasonable," the UNHRC intervention in Supreme Court has said.
