世俗主义和公民身份修正法案

A. Chandrachud
{"title":"世俗主义和公民身份修正法案","authors":"A. Chandrachud","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3513828","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper examines the provisions of the recently enacted Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) against the backdrop of the citizenship provisions of the Indian Constitution. It argues that by articulating a preference towards non-Muslim immigrants and discriminating against Muslim immigrants, the CAA is vaguely reminiscent of policies adopted by the Indian government at the time of the partition of the country and the framing of the Constitution. However, this paper will then argue that the CAA is unconstitutional by today’s standards because the conditions which existed during the days of India’s dominionship, between August 1947 and January 1950, viz., partition-era housing shortages and a communal environment charged by millions of refugees, no longer exist in India today. It posits that the CAA is discriminatory for several reasons though not for the insidious, mala fide reasons that are usually attributed to the government in popular discourse.","PeriodicalId":13511,"journal":{"name":"Indian Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Secularism and the Citizenship Amendment Act\",\"authors\":\"A. Chandrachud\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3513828\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This paper examines the provisions of the recently enacted Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) against the backdrop of the citizenship provisions of the Indian Constitution. It argues that by articulating a preference towards non-Muslim immigrants and discriminating against Muslim immigrants, the CAA is vaguely reminiscent of policies adopted by the Indian government at the time of the partition of the country and the framing of the Constitution. However, this paper will then argue that the CAA is unconstitutional by today’s standards because the conditions which existed during the days of India’s dominionship, between August 1947 and January 1950, viz., partition-era housing shortages and a communal environment charged by millions of refugees, no longer exist in India today. It posits that the CAA is discriminatory for several reasons though not for the insidious, mala fide reasons that are usually attributed to the government in popular discourse.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13511,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"18\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3513828\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3513828","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

摘要

本文以印度宪法中的公民身份条款为背景,对最近颁布的《2019年公民身份(修正案)法》(CAA)的条款进行了研究。它认为,通过明确表达对非穆斯林移民的偏好和对穆斯林移民的歧视,CAA模糊地让人想起印度政府在国家分裂和制定宪法时所采取的政策。然而,本文将认为,按照今天的标准,CAA是违宪的,因为在1947年8月至1950年1月印度统治期间存在的条件,即分区时代的住房短缺和数百万难民所带来的公共环境,在今天的印度不再存在。它认为,CAA具有歧视性的原因有几个,尽管不是阴险的、恶意的原因,这些原因通常在大众话语中被归咎于政府。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Secularism and the Citizenship Amendment Act
ABSTRACT This paper examines the provisions of the recently enacted Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) against the backdrop of the citizenship provisions of the Indian Constitution. It argues that by articulating a preference towards non-Muslim immigrants and discriminating against Muslim immigrants, the CAA is vaguely reminiscent of policies adopted by the Indian government at the time of the partition of the country and the framing of the Constitution. However, this paper will then argue that the CAA is unconstitutional by today’s standards because the conditions which existed during the days of India’s dominionship, between August 1947 and January 1950, viz., partition-era housing shortages and a communal environment charged by millions of refugees, no longer exist in India today. It posits that the CAA is discriminatory for several reasons though not for the insidious, mala fide reasons that are usually attributed to the government in popular discourse.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信