AAP leader and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh has seconded Sibal's argument of 'CAA being irrevocable unless amended by Parliament'. He further stated that states cannot evade the law passed by the Parliament by merely passing a resolution in the State Assembly.
"He (Kapil Sibal) is correct. A law passed in the Parliament can be changed only by the Parliament. Laws that are passed by the state can be amended by the states. Some laws can be amended by the center only, by the Parliament. So you can pass a resolution on CAA but you cannot change the law in any state. CAA can only be amended by the Center in the Parliament," said the AAP leader.
Earlier on Saturday, while speaking at the Kerala Literature Festival, Sibal had said that constitutionally no state can say that it will not implement the CAA, as doing so will be "unconstitutional".
Elaborating further on the resolution passed by Kerala against implementing the CAA in the state and its appeal to several other states to pass such a resolution in their respective Assemblies, Singh said, "Passing a resolution can only be a show-off, a pressure tactics — but you can not stop CAA in your state by passing resolution against it."
Following Kerala's move, the Punjab government has also passed a resolution in the state assembly against the implementation of CAA in the state. Echoing similar sentiments, the Maharashtra government led by Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) is also mulling over following Kerala and Punjab. Speaking to news agency ANI, Congress spokesperson Raju Waghmare said, "Our senior party leader Balasaheb Thorat has also shared his stand on the CAA. Even Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray has said that he is against the CAA. As far as the resolution against CAA is concerned, our senior leaders of MVA will sit together and decide."
Kerala government has also approached the Supreme Court against the CAA following the passage of a resolution against it. Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh has also announced that Congress state government is going to join Kerala in the case at Supreme Court.