The Supreme Court of India has recently declined to entertain a writ petition filed by a Pakistani Christian national seeking Indian citizenship or a long-term visa. The petitioner, Jude Mendes, who was born in Goa in 1987 but later moved to Pakistan, had approached the court citing religious persecution in Pakistan and the impending expiration of his long-term visa on June 20, 2025.
Mendes' case also challenged the December 31, 2014, cut-off date stipulated by the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019. The CAA offers a path to Indian citizenship for religious minorities—specifically Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians—who have fled persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, provided they entered India on or before the specified date. Mendes arrived in India in 2016, after this cut-off.
A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan addressed the matter. When questioned by Justice Mishra about why he had approached the Supreme Court, Mendes' counsel stated that the citizenship application was pending, and the challenge to the CAA's cut-off date was based on his arrival after the set date. The court, however, was not inclined to entertain the plea. Justice Manmohan suggested that Mendes approach the Bombay High Court instead. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the writ petition to be withdrawn, granting Mendes the liberty to pursue his case in the Bombay High Court.
In his petition, Mendes, a Roman Catholic, argued that his religious community faces severe persecution in Pakistan, compelling him to seek refuge in India. He highlighted his inability to renew his Pakistani passport due to safety concerns and the fact that he is married to an Indian national. He currently works as a chef in Goa.
The CAA has been a subject of intense debate and legal challenges since its enactment. Several petitions are pending before the Supreme Court, challenging the CAA's constitutionality on grounds of discrimination and violation of secular principles. Critics argue that the CAA's religious classification for citizenship eligibility contravenes Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, and Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty. The law's emphasis on religious identity is seen as conflicting with the secular fabric of the Constitution.
The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) and other organizations have filed petitions contending that the CAA is "manifestly arbitrary" and that no law can be passed if its basis is religion, as it strikes at the root of secularism, a fundamental aspect of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court is yet to rule on the substantive challenges to the CAA, but the rejection of Mendes' plea underscores the court's current stance on the CAA's cut-off date. This decision directs the focus back to the Bombay High Court for Mendes' case, while broader legal questions surrounding the CAA remain under consideration by the Supreme Court.
