Assam Accord | Government Has To Be Given Leeway To Make Compromises For Nation's Well Being, Says Supreme Court [Day 2 Hearing]

While hearing petitions challenging Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 6) orally remarked that certain political compromises made by the government of the day for the overall welfare of the nation cannot be always judged on the basis of hindsight wisdom, as the Government has to be given the leeway to deal the expedient problems of the moment.The Constitution Bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud along with Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955. This provision allows foreign migrants, who came to Assam after the 1st January, 1966 but before the 25th March, 1971, to seek Indian citizenship. Certain indigenous groups of Assam have challenged this provision, contending that it legalised illegal infiltration of foreign migrants from Bangladesh.Government Should Be Given Latitude To Maintain Peace & Security Of Nation: Supreme CourtContinuing his submissions from tomorrow, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan stated that Section 6A(2) operated in a blanket manner, without any specific determination process. Thus, people who have been ordinarily resident in Assam since their entry into the state are deemed to be citizens of India from January 1, 1966. This lack of scrutiny and time limit could encourage false claims and attract people to remain in Assam as per Divan.Divan then asserted that the classification of Assam as against other border states lacked reasonable classification in accordance with Article 14. He pointed out the singling out of Assam, when other border states like West Bengal and Tripura also faced challenges of illegal migrants from Bangladesh, was in violation of Article 14. According to Divan, Assam and neighbouring border states, as well as all states dealing with illegal migrants, formed a homogeneous single class and as such should be dealt with in a similar manner. At this submission, the CJI asked–"Can parliament say that we are doing this to bring about peace in a strife-ridden state? Or should we continue that strife merely because we will be discriminating between states? These are vexed issues. The situation of Assam in 1985- there was so much violence. Any solution they would have found is bound to be an inexact solution. There cannot be a mathematical solution."Divan responded by stressing the need for constitutionally sustainable methods that do not disproportionately impact one community or state. He argued that rewarding illegal migrants in one place was inherently discriminatory. He added that if the object and the effect of a law itself was discriminatory, the law fell foul of Article 14. In this context, he relied on the judgement in Nagpur Improvement Trust v Vithal Rao. However, the CJI did not seem convinced and stated that the government should be given latitude, particularly in states affected by insurgency and violence. He emphasized the need to grant the government leeway to make necessary adjustments to preserve the nation, acknowledging that compromises may be required for the overall well-being of the country. He said–"We must also give the government that latitude. Even today we have states in the North East, we may not name them, but there are states affected by insurgency, affected by violence. We have to give the government that leeway to make adjustments necessary to save the nation. Maybe 25 years later it may appear - that why did you make that concession when the nation is stable. But at that moment, these are compromises that the government has to make to save the overall well-being of the nation."Divan raised issues with the framing of Section 6A. He contended that there seemed to be a lack of study or material within the government that would indicate an understanding of the potential impact of the provision. Divan criticized the allowance of extensive regularization of illegal immigrants without a specified time frame, suggesting that it opened the door for future generations to make claims for citizenship. He argued that such provisions severely undermine the economic, social, and political aspirations of the indigenous people protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Divan concluded by asserting that legislative provisions should align with constitutional principles and not run counter to them.Parliament Protecting Illegal Immigrants Instead Of Indigenous Population: Senior Advocate KN ChoudhurySenior Advocate KN Choudhury also argued for petitioners today and stated that the situation that existed today involved the Government of India prioritizing and protecting immigrants at the expense of indigenous people of Assam. He criticized Section 6A, describing it as a "Parliamentary joke" enacted by a regime with a significant majority. He said–"Can we ever conceive a situation where the Government of India wants to protect immigrants at the cost of indigenous people? Today,...

Assam Accord | Government Has To Be Given Leeway To Make Compromises For Nation's Well Being, Says Supreme Court [Day 2 Hearing]

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Padmakshi Sharma

Assam Accord | Government Has To Be Given Leeway To Make Compromises For Nation's Well Being, Says Supreme Court [Day 2 Hearing]

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers