English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

It has been widely argued that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 (“CAA”) breaches Article 14’s equality guarantee due to its under-inclusiveness i.e. it does not include within its ambit many migrants who faced persecution similar to the persons it covers. However, it is often argued that under-inclusive laws are subjected to a low standard of review, which increases the justificatory burden on those who challenge its validity. I argue that there is no support in principle or case law for the argument that under-inclusive laws are subject to lower scrutiny than over-inclusive ones. Linked to this is the question of constitutional remedies for under-inclusive laws, which I analyse drawing on jurisprudence from India and other jurisdictions. Contrary to dominant opinion, I argue that, were the CAA to be declared unconstitutional, the appropriate remedy would be to extend its benefits to those hitherto uncovered by it, rather than striking it down.

Under-inclusive laws and constitutional remedies: an exploration of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019