Old video of Abhinav Chandrachud breaking down history, unconstitutionality of CAA, viral again
Abhinav Chandrachud prominent lawyer and writer, is also son of CJI DY Chandrachud
Mumbai: In a detailed and insightful exposition on the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), Abhinav Chandrachud, a prominent lawyer and writer, offered a thorough analysis at the Mumbai Collective event in February 2020. The video is once again doing rounds across social media platforms days after the government of Indian led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi notified the CAA ahead of the 2024 general elections.
With his background as the son of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, his perspective carried weight as he delved into the historical backdrop and contemporary implications of this contentious legislation.
Chandrachud commenced by taking the audience back to the tumultuous period post-India's partition in 1947. He recounted how a significant number of people migrated from West Pakistan (present-day Pakistan) to India, forming the initial wave of immigrants. A subsequent wave in 1948 saw the return of many Muslims who were originally Indian citizens but had left during the partition chaos.
However, this return posed a challenge because the properties owned by these returning Muslims had been allotted to Hindus and Sikhs who had migrated earlier. To navigate this sensitive issue and prevent potential conflicts, the government introduced a "permit system." This system allowed provincial governments to decide whether these returning Muslims could be granted permanent residency based on the properties they owned, he added.
Chandrachud pointed out that this system displayed clear biases, with only a fraction of the applicants being granted permits. He emphasized how this historical context sheds light on the inherent lack of secularism in the law, despite no explicit mention of religion in the constitution.
He also explained how this permit was only applicable to people coming in from West Pakistan and not East (present day Bangladesh), because 16 million Hindu stayed in the region, and it would have been tough for them to come back if they were wanting to.
Moving on to the recent amendments to the citizenship law, Chandrachud highlighted the selective nature of the changes. He questioned why certain religious and non-religious groups, such as Jews, Parsis, and atheists, were excluded from the provisions of the CAA. Chandrachud further pointed out disparities in the naturalization timelines for Parsis fleeing persecution from different countries, illustrating inconsistencies in the law's application.
“When I posted online a paper that I wrote, I was told that the Jews have Israel, but if Jews have Israel, the Christians and Buddhists have their own country too, we have included them,” he added.
If Parsis who originally fled the religious persecution in Iran, seeks Indian citizenship for them to get naturalized citizenship, they have to wait for 11 years, but for the Parsis who flee religious persecution in Afghanistan, they can get Indian citizenship in five years, doesn’t make sense.
Addressing concerns about the impact of the CAA on marginalized groups, Chandrachud raised thought-provoking questions. He questioned the morality of punishing individuals born in India to undocumented immigrant parents, challenging the fairness of deporting or incarcerating them for circumstances beyond their control.
“Let’s assume both your parents are illegal Bangladeshi immigrants and they came and settled in Maharashtra, and the child was born in Maharashtra, is it the fault of the child that he was born in India? Is being born a crime? Is it fair to now deport the child to the country that he/she has never known or been? Or jail that person for being born in India?” Chandrachud asked.
"What if you're an orphan? You have to prove that your parents are citizens and you don't even know who they are," he added.
In his comprehensive analysis, Chandrachud not only traced the historical evolution of India's citizenship law but also scrutinized its contemporary implications. His insights, accessible and relevant to the Indian audience, underscored the complexities and ethical dimensions inherent in the issue of citizenship in the country.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
