Under the amendment, the required period of residence in India for these groups was reduced, making the citizenship process easier and faster. Muslims from these countries were excluded from this special provision, which became the central point of criticism.

Supporters of the CAA argue that it is a limited and compassionate law. According to the government, the Act does not take away citizenship from any Indian citizen but only provides relief to refugees who had no other place to go. The selected countries are officially Islamic states, where non-Muslim minorities are said to face systematic discrimination. From this perspective, the law is presented as a moral responsibility rather than a violation of rights.

However, critics argue that the CAA introduces religion as a criterion for citizenship for the first time in Indian law. They claim this violates the principle of equality before law guaranteed by Constitution of India. Article 14 promises equal protection of laws to all persons, not just citizens. Opponents argue that excluding Muslims, including persecuted Muslim sects such as Ahmadis or Rohingyas, makes the law discriminatory and arbitrary.

The concerns surrounding the CAA became stronger when it was discussed alongside the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). Many feared that undocumented individuals could be required to prove citizenship, and while non-Muslims could rely on the CAA for protection, Muslims might face exclusion or statelessness. Although the government repeatedly stated that there is no nationwide NRC in progress, this fear played a major role in public protests.

The current situation shows that while the CAA remains in force, its implementation has been slow and cautious. The rules required to operationalise the Act were notified several years after its passage, and legal challenges are still pending before the Supreme Court. The Court has not yet delivered a final judgment on the constitutional validity of the Act. Meanwhile, public attention has shifted, but concerns about equality and citizenship continue to shape political discourse.

Socially and politically, the CAA revealed deep divisions within Indian society. Large-scale protests, especially led by students and civil society groups, highlighted anxieties about secularism and minority rights. At the same time, supporters viewed the opposition as misinformation-driven and politically motivated. The debate showed how citizenship laws are not merely administrative tools but deeply connected to identity and belonging.

In conclusion, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act represents a turning point in India’s citizenship policy. While its supporters see it as a humanitarian step to protect persecuted minorities, critics view it as a challenge to constitutional values of equality and secularism. The final impact of the CAA will depend on judicial interpretation, careful implementation, and the broader commitment to constitutional principles. In a diverse democracy like India, laws related to citizenship must balance compassion, fairness, and inclusiveness to maintain public trust and social harmony.