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.