India told the UN Human Rights Council on Thursday that its Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 is limited and focused legislation that reaffirms the country’s commitment to the welfare of persecuted minorities in the region and takes into account “historical context and current realities on the ground.” .

While the universal periodic review of India’s human rights record is ongoing in Geneva, some member states have raised concerns about the issue of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

The CAA is limited and focused legislation that reaffirms India’s commitment to the welfare of persecuted minorities in the region, said Tushar Mehta, Attorney General of India in his response.

He added that the legislation is similar to laws that exist elsewhere when it comes to defining specific criteria for citizenship routes.

The criteria defined here are specific to India and its neighborhood, taking into account historical context and current realities on the ground,” he said.

He added that it aims to give the opportunity to foreigners from six minority communities – Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsi and Christians – from three specific neighboring countries – Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan – who have migrated to India because of their religious persecution give these countries to get Indian citizenship.”

It will help reduce their statelessness and enable the beneficiaries to lead a safer and more dignified life. This law will not strip any Indian citizen of citizenship, nor will it change or shorten an existing process for acquiring Indian citizenship by foreigners of a country belonging to any faith or religion, Mehta said.

Responding to questions raised by UN member states during the review process on freedom of speech and expression, Mehta said the Indian Constitution guarantees every citizen the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

Like any other freedom, freedom of speech and expression is not absolute and is subject to appropriate limitations in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with the foreign State, public order, decency or morals, contempt of court, Defamation or incitement to commit a crime, he said.

He pointed out that these restrictions are designed to protect national and public interests and must meet a very high threshold.

Imposing reasonable restrictions allows the state to regulate freedom of speech and expression when doing so amounts to hate speech or incites a crime, Mehta said, adding that it is a well-established law in India that an imposed restriction should not be excessive or excessive may be disproportionate.

(Only the headline and image of this report may have been edited by the staff at Business Standard; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)