UN High Commissioner files IA in CAA challenge before Supreme Court to ensure implementation of international legal obligations

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has filed an intervention application (IA) in the challenge to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) pending before the Supreme Court of India..The IA filed on behalf of UN High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet Jeria has been filed with the objective of ensuring the implementation of India's international legal obligations..Jeria has sought to intervene as amicus curiae in the matter, in view of her mandate to protect and promote all human rights and to conduct necessary advocacy in that regard. The IA states,."The High Commissioner's role is thus to promote adherence to international human rights law and, with this purpose in mind, to support domestic courts, with their constitutional or judicial function, in ensuring the implementation of international legal obligations.".The IA goes on to state that the High Commissioner has filed amicus curiae briefs in legal proceedings around the world, including those before the European Court of Human Rights, the International Criminal Court, as well as the United States Supreme Court and final appeal courts of countries in Asia and Latin America..While the High Commissioner's office welcomes the CAA's stated purpose of protecting persons from persecution on religious grounds, the IA goes on to state,."Nevertheless, the examination of the CAA in the present case raises important issues with respect to international human rights law and its application to migrants, including refugees. The examination by the Honourable Court of the CAA is of substantial interest to the High Commissioner, considering its potential implications for the application and interpretation of India’s international human rights obligations, including the right to equality before the law and the prohibition of discrimination as well as the CAA's impact on the protection of human rights of migrants, including refugees in India.".Thus, the main purpose of intervening in the matter is:."It seeks to provide this Honourable Court with an overview of the international human rights norms and standards with respect to States' obligations to provide international protectionto persons at risk of persecution in their countries of origin; the enjoyment of human rights by all migrants; and the right to equality before the law, equal protection of the law and the right to non- discrimination, as applied to migrants."IA filed by UN High Commissioner.On the rights of migrants against discrimination, the IA states that all migrants regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, nationality and/or immigration status enjoy human rights and are entitled to protection against discrimination.The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) all include important non-discrimination clauses, including on the ground of religion, the IA states.."Indeed, international human rights law does not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens or between different groups of non-citizens, within the jurisdiction of a State party in their equal right to enjoy protection from discrimination and be equal before the law, including in respect of their migration status.".While acknowledging that the UN Covenants do not spell out specific criteria for the granting of citizenship through naturalization and that States are free to decide on such criteria, the IA states,."Nonetheless, such sovereign power is not unfettered and must be exercised in conformity with applicable human rights obligations. International human rights law, in this regard, requires the granting of citizenship under law to conform to the right of all persons to equality before the law and to be free from prohibited discrimination.".The IA goes on to state that not all differentiation, exclusion, restriction or preference of treatment constitutes discrimination or lack of equal treatment. However,"...differences in treatment based on religion or immigration status would constitute discrimination if the criteria for establishing that difference, judged in the light of the objectives and purposes of the rights enshrined inhuman rights treaties, do not apply to achieve a legitimate objective and are not proportionate to the achievement of that objective.".The IA also makes a reference to the principle of non-refoulment, which prohibits the expulsion, return, or extradition of a person to a State when there are substantial grounds to believe that the person would be in danger of being subjected to irreparable harm."The question also arises as to whether the differentiation made with regard to persecution on religious grounds, as opposed to other grounds, is sufficiently objective and reasonable, in particular taking into account the prohibition of refoulement and India's obligations under international human rights law.".In light of these observations, among others, the High Commissioner has asked the Supreme Court to take into account international human rights law, norms and standards, in the proceedings related to the CAA.