The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. A 5-judge constitution bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud delivered its verdict on Thursday. Besides Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, the bench also included Justice Suryakant, Justice MM Sundaresh, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra. Four judges including Chief Justice DY Chandrachud concurred in the decision. Justice JB Pardiwala dissented.
In fact, Article 6A of the Citizenship Act was added during the Assam Accord in 1985. Under this Act Bangladeshi immigrants who came to Assam between January 1, 1966 and March 25, 1971 could register themselves as Indian citizens. However, foreigners who arrived in Assam after March 25, 1971 are not eligible for Indian citizenship.
On this law, Justice Suryakant said- We have maintained the constitutional validity of Section 6A. We cannot allow anyone to choose their neighbor and that is against the principle of brotherhood. Our principle is live and let live.
Courtroom Live:
What CJI DY Chandrachud said while delivering the judgment…
CJI: The Assam Accord was a political solution to the growing migration issue. The added Article 6A was a legal solution.
CJI: The central government could have implemented this law in other areas as well, but it did not because it was not like Assam. Assam had an impact on the culture of the people who came to Assam.
CJI: The contention of the petitioner against Article 6A is that one ethnic group cannot protect its language and culture because of the presence of another ethnic group. They have to prove it. Section 6A cannot be held unconstitutional merely because it does not prescribe the procedure for registration. This is wrong. Therefore I also come to the conclusion that Section 6A is valid.
What Justice Suryakant said while delivering the verdict… (This also includes the judgment of Justice Manoj Mishra and Justice MM Sundaresh)
Justice Kant: We have also upheld the constitutional validity of Article 6A. We cannot allow anyone to choose their neighbor and that is against the principle of brotherhood. Our philosophy is live and let live.
Justice Kant: Once the immigrants became citizens of India, they were governed by the Constitution of India. This does not exempt them from obeying the laws of our country.
Justice Kant: We have also rejected the contention that Act 6A was arbitrarily framed. There are clearly defined terms for migrants who came before 1966, after 1966 and before 1971.
Justice Kant: We have held that the petitioners have not proved that the influx of immigrants has seriously affected the Assamese culture and language. We cannot accept that the voting rights of the Assamese people have been affected. The petitioners have not claimed any violation of their statutory rights.
What did Justice Pardiwala say in his dissent?
Justice Pardiwala: Article 6A was introduced to give legal recognition to the political settlement.
Justice Pardiwala: According to this law, naturalized immigrants did not have the right to vote for 10 years. This means that the purpose of this agreement was not only to grant citizenship. This was actually to reassure the people of Assam that such inclusion would not have any impact on the upcoming elections in the state.
Justice Pardiwala: I believe that while determining the validity of Article 6A the intentions of the people who signed the agreement should be taken into account.
Justice Pardiwala: Article 6A has become unconstitutional over time. One thing to keep in mind here is that immigrants are still coming to Assam. Such immigration cannot be attributed to Article 6A.
The Supreme Court heard a total of 17 petitions The Supreme Court heard 17 petitions regarding Assam citizenship. Meanwhile, Shyam Diwan and Somiran Sharma appeared on behalf of All Assam Ahom Association on petitions against Article 6A. K.N. Chaudhary appeared on behalf of the Assam United Federation. Vijay Hansaria was present on behalf of Pranav Majmudar.
Attorney General R. on behalf of the Central Government in favor of Article 6A. Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Advocate Sneha Kalita and Advocate Shubdeep Roy were present on behalf of the Government of Assam. Malvika Trivedi was present on behalf of All Assam Students Union. Sanjay R Hegde and Adil Ahmed appeared for the Assam Sankhya Lagu Sangram Parishad.
Salman Khurshid appeared on behalf of Assam Jamiat Ulema. C.U. Singh appeared on behalf of Citizens for Justice and Peace. Shadan Farasat along with Natasha Maheshwari, Pranab Dhawan, Rishika Jain, Aman Naqvi, Abhishek Babbar, Mriganka Kukreja, Harshit Anand and Shadab Azhar appeared for the Social Justice Forum.
Kapil Sibal was present on behalf of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind. Indira Jaisingh and Paras Nath Singh were present on behalf of All Assam Minority Students Union. Sahil Tagotra appeared on behalf of the Election Commission.
What does Section 6A of the Citizenship Act say? Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955 allows foreign immigrants of Indian origin to acquire Indian citizenship. Who came to Assam after 1 January 1966 but before 25 March 1971. This provision was introduced after the Assam Accord in 1985, which was an agreement between the Government of India and the leaders of the Assam Movement.
These leaders were protesting against the removal of illegal immigrants entering Assam from Bangladesh. When the Bangladesh Liberation War ended, some indigenous groups in Assam challenged this provision, arguing that it legalized the illegal infiltration of foreign immigrants from Bangladesh.
The case reached the Supreme Court in 2012, a decision after 12 years In 2012, a Guwahati-based civil society organization, the Assam United Mahasangh, challenged Article 6A, saying that Article 6A was discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal as it made a separate provision for regularization of illegal immigrants entering Assam and the rest of India through the cut-off dates. has been given.
When the case was heard in 2014, a two-judge bench headed by Justice Rohinton Nariman referred the case to a Constitution Bench, which was constituted on April 19, 2017. In this panel, Justice Madan B. Lokur, Justice R.K. Aggarwal, Justice Prafulla Chandra Pant, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Ashok Bhushan were involved.
As all the judges except Justice Chandrachud retired, Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice MR. Shah, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice P.S. A new bench of Narasimha filed petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Article 6A.
Due to the retirement of Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari, the Bench was reconstituted, comprising Justice AS Bopanna, Justice MM Sundaresh, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra along with CJI DY Chandrachud. The hearing of the case began on December 5 and will conclude on December 12, 2023. The court reserved the decision.
Image Credit: (Divya-Bhaskar): Images/graphics belong to (Divya-Bhaskar).
