S.6A Citizenship Act | Why Assam Singled Out Though West Bengal Shares Larger Border With Bangladesh? Supreme Court Asks Union [Day 3]

While hearing petitions challenging Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, the Supreme Court on Thursday (December 6) orally remarked that regardless of the outcome of the petitions on the constitutionality aspect, the issues raised in the petitions pertaining to illegal immigration were "crucial problem independent of Section 6A". The court directed the Union Government to furnish data on the inflow of illegal migrants to Assam and North-Eastern states after March 25, 1971. It also directed the Centre to inform the steps taken by the Government at an administrative level to deal with illegal immigration into the North Eastern states particularly Assam. Details have to be furnished in regard to extent of border fencing and the estimated timelines to complete border fencing.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.Why Was Assam "Singled Out" When West Bengal Shared Larger Border With Bangladesh?: Supreme CourtAt the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta emphasized that the examination before the court was limited to the question of constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955. He then stated that while it was acknowledged that there was an influx of immigrants that were eating away opportunities for Indian citizens, declaring Section 6A as unconstitutional was not the solution. Referring to the text of Section 6A, the SG asserted that the provision confined to a particular period of time (pre-1971) for a particular place (Assam). Further, the category from which persons were permitted to enter India was only through Bangladesh, with additional conditions such as their parents or grandparents having been born in undivided India. To the submissions of the SG, Justice MM Sundresh remarked–"There is a huge gap between action taken by instrument of state and the proceedings before tribunal. The situation in Assam is facilitated by the lacuna under the Act because neither you push them to the tribunal nor they're willing to go before the tribunal."Justice Sundresh added that non-citizen persons of Indian origin who came before 1 January 1966 and had been residing in Assam without a serious break were deemed to be citizens of India. SG Mehta stated that this was because of an assurance given by then Prime Minister of Bangladesh in February 1972 that all Bangladeshi nationals who had taken shelter in India since 25 March 1971 were to be taken back. Based on the same, a circular was issued by the government of India in September 1972 stating that those who had arrived in India before 25 March 1971 were not to be sent back. The CJI referred to this as an “interesting understanding” between the two governments to prevent people from being stateless in India.The SG asserted that the provision had outlived its utility and nobody alive would be able to take benefits of the same except progenies of those who came before 1971. He added that Section 6A was made by the Parliament based on considerations foreign policy and maintenance of international relations. Adding that the Parliament was empowered to make laws on citizenship, which was a matter of legislative policy he submitted that it was “very difficult, if not altogether impossible” for the court to judge the constitutional validity of the provision.The bench asked the SG why Assam was "singled out" with no mirroring provisions for States like West Bengal which were also a border state. The CJI asked–"We found out that West Bengal shares a much larger border with Bangladesh. Therefore, presumably, the extent of illegal migration into West Bengal would be as or even more significant."The SG, clarifying that his response represented his views and not necessarily the government's official stance, stated that Assam faced the problem and raised it at a higher level because of cultural differences between Bengali-speaking migrants and Assamese people. He highlighted that culturally, Bengalis and Bangladeshi were similar. The CJI pressed further, questioning why Parliament believed that the problem of illegal immigration was peculiar to Assam. The SG responded by emphasizing that the business of laying down permanent laws on citizenship was left to Parliament. He argued that the contention was essentially an argument of underclassification, suggesting that instead of one, laws should have been made for all border states. However, he asserted that underclassification, in this case, may not be a ground to declare the existing law as ultra vires. He cited...

S.6A Citizenship Act | Why Assam Singled Out Though West Bengal Shares Larger Border With Bangladesh? Supreme Court Asks Union [Day 3]

Padmakshi Sharma

Tags