Assam Accord : Supreme Court Reserves Judgement On Pleas Challenging Constitutional Validity Of Section 6A Of Citizenship Act

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reserved its judgement in the batch of petitions challenging Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955 today (12.12.2023). The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud along with Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra heard the matter for four days before reserving the judgement. Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955 allows foreign migrants of Indian origin, 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.Today, the bench concluded the proceedings after hearing the arguments of the intervenors and the rejoinder submissions of the petitioners. During the proceedings, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta also provided the bench with details on illegal immigrants and those who had been granted citizenship in light of S. 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. He also provided details regarding the border fencing. Details regarding the same can be found here.It may be recalled that on December 7, the Court had directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to furnish data regarding the inflow of illegal migrants to Assam and North Eastern states after March 25, 1971 (post the declaration of Bangladesh independence) and to provide data-based disclosures under various heads including the grant of citizenship to immigrants in different time periods, workings of the Foreigners Tribunals established etc. The SG also highlighted that the Union's progress in fencing the border in West Bengal was hindered due to West Bengal's non-cooperation. "West Bengal Government follows a far slower, more complex direct land purchase policy. Even for national security purposes like border fencing, there is non-cooperation by the state government. If the State of West Bengal cooperates in acquiring the land and hands over the land for fencing, the central government will do so," SG submitted.Indian Citizenship Not Ethno-Nationalist: Senior Advocate Sanjay HegdeThe arguments made by Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde today emphasized the historical context of Indian citizenship, highlighting the fluidity in the identification of citizenship, especially in the context of the partition. Hegde stated that people entering through the Eastern border (through Bangladesh) were allowed to do so as a substantial number of Hindus were yet to come into the territory of India. He said–"We were a nation that had suffered a partition. There was a question as to who was an Indian and who wasn't. Therefore, we defined only at commencement... situation also had to take into account migration caused by partition. Those who had gone from India needed a permit to come back and resettle. That permission was very difficult to get. This applied largely to the western border. On the Eastern Border, Mr Iyengar makes it clear that permit system isn't to apply on eastern border. And for good reason. There was a substantial number of Hindus who still remained in erstwhile East Pakistan who were yet to come over. Among the Hindus that came was the first law minister of Pakistan Mr Jogender Nath Mandal."Hegde emphasized that Indian citizenship was not ethno-nationalist and was not based on factors such as language, religion, or culture. He urged the court to avoid making statements that could unintentionally be judgmental in sensitive areas, particularly in the North East, and mentioned the potential consequences of seemingly innocuous statements on other cases. He stated that–"While on the western border, it was clearly drawn, on the eastern border, it was kept fluid. Indian citizenship is not ethno-nationalist. It's not based on language, religion, culture. There is no superior or inferior citizenship based on ancestry of any time."He gave an example of a "seemingly innocuous statement" made in a tax law case which ended up being deleted due to its consequences in Sikkim. He added–"I say this from some experience, particularly from when I went to Shaheen Bagh- people resent greatly when their Indian-ness is questioned. We are all Indians. We may have come from different boats but we're in the same ship."Petitioners Seeking To Strip Away Rights Accrued To Others: Senior Advocate CU SinghSenior Advocate CU Singh argued that the petitioners were not merely seeking their own rights but were attempting to strip away the rights accrued to others over several decades. He contended that Section 6A, which allowed the determination of foreigners as per the Assam Accord, did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Singh suggested that granting citizenship to one class of people did not automatically constitute a violation, and the denial of citizenship to another class could not be questioned by someone else. He said–"This is not a case where the petitioners were merely seeking assertion of some right of their own. The...

Assam Accord : Supreme Court Reserves Judgement On Pleas Challenging Constitutional Validity Of Section 6A Of Citizenship Act

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Assam Accord : Supreme Court Reserves Judgement On Pleas Challenging Constitutional Validity Of Section 6A Of Citizenship Act

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers