Examining the Legitimacy of the CAA and NRC within Human Rights Framework

Abstract

As the CAB, Citizenship Amendment Bill was presented at the centre, outbreaks and protests occurred, particularly in the North-eastern State, Assam, the most affected area on account of its location and the demographics of its ethnic minorities. Owing to the state’s geographic location, it has seen the greatest inflow of refugees, and because it is viewed as a treasure trove of ethnic communities, there exists rapid growing fear that these communities would lose their identities as a result of adulteration. Since it violated the conditions of the 1985 Assam Accord, the outcome that was almost reached between the federal government, state governments, and the indigenous people of Assam, the law has also generated controversy in this area. Nonetheless, in terms of the human rights regime, the preservation of refugees' rights is crucial. Any state that upholds the concept of non-refoulement has given rise to customary international law or a pre-emptive standard from which deviation is prohibited, hence it is impossible for any state to refuse to fulfil its obligations to refugees. However, a state must consider both its own national security and the rights of its indigenous population, which are enshrined in international law. This tension has caused the bill to take up the role of a contentious issue, particularly in pertaining to the human rights regime, and it has given rise to two opposing schools of thought. One of them is inclined for protecting the rights/freedoms of refugees, while the other is directed towards protecting the rights/freedoms of people of Indigenous origin(IP) and maintaining national security.