In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India has delved into discussions surrounding Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, emphasizing the need for flexibility in governance to address insurgency and violence in northeastern states. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, leading a five-judge constitution bench, stressed the importance of allowing the government leeway to implement adjustments crucial for the nation's well-being.
The context of this legal scrutiny revolves around Assam and the specific provisions of Section 6A. The bench, which includes Justices Surya Kant, M M Sundresh, J B Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, is currently reviewing 17 petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6A concerning illegal immigrants in Assam.
Section 6A, introduced in 1985 as part of the Citizenship Act, addresses the citizenship status of individuals covered by the Assam Accord. It mandates individuals who arrived in Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, from designated territories, including Bangladesh, to register under Section 18 for Indian citizenship.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, representing petitioners, argued against the uniform operation of Section 6A, contending that it provides benefits to illegal immigrants in Assam, contrary to citizenship laws. Divan sought the annulment of the provision and proposed a policy for the settlement and rehabilitation of individuals of Indian origin arriving in Assam after January 6, 1951.
In response, the bench raised concerns about potential discrimination among states and questioned whether Parliament could allow strife to persist in Assam under the pretext of avoiding such discrimination. CJI Chandrachud acknowledged the imperfections in the solutions arrived at in 1985 due to significant violence in Assam.
Another argument against Section 6A came from senior advocate KN Choudhury, who questioned the legislation's prioritization of immigrants over indigenous people in Assam. He criticized the law as a product of political motivations, dismissing it as a parliamentary joke.
The hearing remains inconclusive, with the Supreme Court requesting data on the beneficiaries of Section 6A in Assam. The court acknowledged the complexity of the situation, considering the humanitarian aspect of the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war and the influx of immigrants during that period.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta provided data indicating the entry of illegal immigrants into Assam, emphasizing the necessity of addressing the issue. A total of 17 petitions, including one filed by the NGO Assam Public Works in 2009, are pending in the Supreme Court.
The legal discussions center around the delicate balance between addressing the citizenship status of migrants in Assam, as outlined in Section 6A, and ensuring the well-being and political aspirations of the state's indigenous population.
The court is set to resume the hearings today to further deliberate on this complex and multifaceted issue.
Case: In Re: Section 6A Citizenship Act 1955.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy