CAA cannot be questioned or deliberated in any manner: Kiran Bedi to Puducherry CM

Days ahead of the special session of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly, Lieutenant Governor Kiran Bedi on Monday wrote a letter to Chief Minister V. Narayanasamy stating that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, passed by the Parliament, is applicable to Puducherry as well, which cannot be questioned or deliberated in any manner.

The special Assembly session is likely to take up resolutions including against Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

This comes after three MLAs - V Saminthan, KG Shankar and S Selvaganbathy - met Bedi earlier today.

"The three members nominated by the central government to Puducherry Legislative Assembly called on me today and submitted a representation. The MLAs have stated that the ruling party would be bringing a resolution against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act of Government of India in the Puducherry Legislative Assembly, which has been convened on February 12," Bedi said in her letter to Narayanasamy.

Bedi stated in her letter that the MLAs had earlier given a representation to the Speaker of Puducherry Legislative Assembly not to permit any discussion/resolution on CAA as it exceeds the power of Legislative Assembly under Section 18(1) and 18(2) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963.

She also outlined that CAA has been passed by both the Houses of Parliament and been assented by President.

Bedi stated that the law passed by Parliament, namely CAA is applicable to Puducherry as well, which cannot be questioned or deliberated in any manner.

"The Legislative power of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly does not extend to discuss or deliberate the subject matter of citizenship, as it falls squarely within the domain of Parliament and central government. Further, the matter of CAA is already under adjudication before Supreme Court. As per the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Puducherry Legislative Assembly, 1966, resolution of any matter which is under adjudication by a court of law having jurisdiction in any part of India is not admissible under Rule 105" she said.