Maharashtra follows Punjab, Kerala, contemplates passing resolution against CAA
After Kerala and Punjab, the Maha Vikas Agadi (MVA) government in Maharashtra also considered moving a resolution against the CAA in the state Assembly
Mumbai: After Kerala and Punjab, the Maha Vikas Agadi (MVA) government is also mulling a resolution against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 in Maharashtra Assembly.
Congress spokesperson Raju Waghmare said, "Our senior party leader Balasaheb Thorat has also shared his stand on the CAA. Even Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray has said that we are against the CAA. As far as the resolution against CAA is concerned, our senior leaders of MVA will sit together and decide." If this happens, then Maharashtra will be the third state to pass a resolution against CAA, which grants citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, who came to India on or before December 31, 2014.
Emphasising that CAA is 'unconstitutional,' senior lawyer and Congress leader Kapil Sibal has said that every state Assembly has the constitutional right to pass a resolution and seek CAA's withdrawal.
He added that it would be problematic to oppose the CAA if the law is declared to be 'constitutional' by the Supreme Court.
"I believe the CAA is unconstitutional. Every State Assembly has the constitutional right to pass a resolution and seek its withdrawal. When and if the law is declared to be constitutional by the Supreme Court then it will be problematic to oppose it/The fight must go on!" Sibal tweeted.
Earlier, speaking at the Kerala Literature Festival on Saturday, the Congress leader had said that constitutionally no state can say that it will not implement the amended Citizenship Act, as doing so will be "unconstitutional".
Kerala government has also approached the Supreme Court against the CAA following the passage of a resolution against it in the state Assembly.
Punjab chief minister Amarinder Singh has also announced that the Congress state government is going to join Kerala in the Supreme Court in the case.