The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday has deferred its judgment on a series of petitions challenging Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955. Following four days of hearings, the five-judge panel, headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, concluded proceedings and reserved the order.

Section 6A, a distinctive provision incorporated into the 1955 Act after the signing of the "Assam Accord" in 1985, grants certain rights and responsibilities to foreigners who arrived in Assam before January 1, 1966. Those entering the state between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, are granted similar rights, with the exception of voting for a 10-year period.

The court considered 17 petitions, including one from Assam Public Works, challenging the perceived discriminatory nature of Section 6A. The argument contends that this provision contradicts Article 6 of the Constitution, which establishes the cut-off date for granting citizenship to immigrants as July 19, 1948.

This case, filed in 2009, has traversed through various benches and questions. Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, representing the Assam minority community, expressed gratitude for his involvement in citizenship matters and underscored the unity of all Indians, irrespective of their diverse origins. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta presented the affidavit filed by the Centre, addressing issues related to the detection of foreigners and challenges in estimating the inflow of illegal migrants.

Mehta revealed that the Ministry of Home Affairs had disbursed Rs 122 crores in the past five years for the operational expenses of foreigners' tribunals. However, he highlighted challenges in border control in West Bengal due to the non-cooperation of the state government.

During rejoinder submissions, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan pointed out that Section 6A has no temporal limit, indicating individuals could still apply for citizenship under this provision today. Chief Justice Chandrachud raised a hypothetical scenario, questioning the validity of citizenship status for someone claiming it under Section 6A after being denied a passport.

In response, Divan argued for the removal of Section 6A, emphasizing the need for specific criteria for citizenship. He dismissed concerns about statelessness, asserting that the existing nationwide citizenship regime would be applied to Assam.

As the Supreme Court navigates this complex case, the outcome will have far-reaching implications for the interpretation of citizenship laws in India. The delay in judgment indicates the intricate nature of the legal issues at hand and the importance of a thorough and considered decision.

Case: IN RE: SECTION 6A OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT 1955,

Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).274/2009.

Click to read/download judgment.