“”

On June 11, 2025, a two‑judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan, refused to entertain a writ petition by Jude Mendes, a 38‑year‑old Goa‑born Pakistani Roman Catholic, who sought Indian citizenship under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA), as well as an extension of his expiring Long‑Term Visa, on the grounds of sustained religious persecution in Pakistan—Mendes having entered India in 2016, six years beyond the Act’s entrenched cut‑off date of December 31, 2014; notwithstanding arguments grounded in Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution—highlighting alleged irrational temporal discrimination and invoking the doctrine of non‑refoulement—the Supreme Court decisively declined to address the merits, viewing the petition as improperly filed before the apex under Article 32 without first approaching the Bombay High Court under Article 226, remarking pointedly, “Why have you come here?” before directing the petitioner—with liberty granted to withdraw the petition—to seek appropriate relief from the High Court ; the Court thus sidestepped consideration of whether the CAA’s rigid temporal boundary violates its own humanitarian purpose in light of ongoing Christian persecution in Pakistan, or whether Article 21 protections preclude statelessness and refoulement even absent formal citizenship, thereby leaving unresolved critical constitutional questions concerning statutory classification and fundamental rights; the decision underscores the judiciary’s insistence on hierarchical propriety, even in grave humanitarian contexts, and signals that the broader legal and moral questions surrounding the CAA cut‑off and non‑citizen protections must now await adjudication in the Bombay High Court, and potentially, future Supreme Court review.