Guwahati : The Supreme Court of India on Monday said it will commence hearings in May on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) and the rules framed under it, with cases from Assam and Tripura to be heard separately from those concerning the rest of the country.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, outlined a structured schedule for the long-pending matter and sought clarity from counsel on the time required for arguments.

Addressing the parties, the bench noted that the petitions would be grouped into two categories – those relating specifically to Assam and Tripura, and those arising from other states. “CAA 2019 petitions are divided into two groups, Assam-Tripura and the rest of the country. Nodal counsels will submit lists within two weeks, after which the registry will organise hearings starting the week of May 5, 2026,” the court said.

As per the schedule indicated in open court, arguments by petitioners will be heard on May 5 and 6, followed by submissions from respondents on May 7. Rejoinder arguments, if any, will be taken up on May 12.

The CAA has been under judicial scrutiny since shortly after it was enacted by Parliament on December 11, 2019, and received presidential assent the following day. According to court records, a total of 243 petitions have been filed challenging various aspects of the law.

Among the earliest petitioners was the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), which moved the apex court soon after the Act was passed. Several political parties, civil society organisations, student groups, and individuals subsequently approached the court, raising concerns over the legislation’s constitutional validity.

The Act amends the Citizenship Act, 1955 by introducing a proviso to Section 2(1)(b), which defines “illegal migrants.” Under the amended framework, members of six specified religious communities – Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians – who entered India on or before December 31, 2014, from Pakistan, Bangladesh or Afghanistan are not to be treated as illegal migrants if they have been exempted by the central government under relevant laws.

Specifically, the amendment applies to those exempted under the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and the Foreigners Act, 1946. Such individuals are made eligible to apply for Indian citizenship through a fast-tracked process.

The exclusion of Muslims from the ambit of the CAA has been at the centre of legal and political controversy since the law’s passage. Petitioners contend that the classification based on religion violates the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Several petitions also argue that the Act undermines the secular structure of the Constitution and is inconsistent with the principle of non-discrimination. In addition, specific challenges from Assam have raised concerns about the law’s compatibility with the Assam Accord and its potential demographic impact in the region.

On December 18, 2019, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Union government on the batch of petitions. However, at that stage, the court declined to stay the operation of the Act, noting that the rules required for its implementation had not yet been notified.

For nearly four years thereafter, the legislation remained in force on paper but was not operationalised due to the absence of procedural rules. During this period, the matter remained pending before the apex court without substantive hearings on merits.

The legal landscape shifted on March 11, 2024, when the Union government notified the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, formally bringing the CAA into effect. The notification triggered fresh applications before the Supreme Court seeking an interim stay on the operation of both the Act and the newly notified rules.

In response, the apex court sought the Centre’s reply to the interim pleas but declined to pass any order suspending the implementation of the law. The government has maintained that the Act is a narrowly tailored humanitarian measure aimed at providing relief to persecuted minorities from neighbouring Islamic republics.