Vikrant Shekhawat : Oct 17, 2024, 12:39 PM
Supreme Court News: The Supreme Court has given a historic verdict declaring Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955 as constitutional. In this case, a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice (CJI) DY Chandrachud gave this decision by a majority of 4:1. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Suryakant, Justice Sundaresh and Justice Manoj Mishra upheld the constitutionality of this section, while Justice JP Pardiwala considered it unconstitutional.Constitutionality of Assam Accord and Section 6AChief Justice DY Chandrachud said in his judgment that the Assam Accord was a political solution to the problem of illegal refugees, and Section 6A presents a legislative solution to this problem. Under the Assam Accord, a cut-off date of 25 March 1971 was set, on the basis of which refugees who came to India after 1 January 1966 and before 25 March 1971 were given the right to Indian citizenship. CJI Chandrachud said that if the central government wanted, it could have applied it to other areas as well, but this was a unique case for Assam.Majority decision of the courtThe Supreme Court held the cut-off date of 25 March 1971 as valid, saying that after independence there was more migration from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) to Assam than to other areas of India. The court said that Section 6A is neither overly inclusive nor under-inclusive. Its purpose was only to prevent illegal migration and protect the rights of the citizens of Assam.Chief Justice's reasoningCJI Chandrachud, in his judgment, cited Article 355 of the Constitution and said that it is the duty of the central government to protect the state governments from external aggression. If this duty is read as a right, it will give emergency powers to citizens and courts, which can be destructive. He also clarified that the presence of different ethnic groups does not mean a violation of Article 29 (1). The petitioners will have to prove that one ethnic group is not able to protect its language and culture due to the presence of another ethnic group.The CJI also said that Section 6A cannot be held unconstitutional even though it does not prescribe the process of registration. This is not the actual model of granting citizenship, so this section is constitutional.Opinion of other judgesJustice Suryakant, Justice Manoj Mishra and Justice MM Sundaresh in their decisions upheld the constitutionality of Section 6A. They made it clear that Section 6A cannot be struck down on the basis of judicial review and delay. They also said that "we cannot allow anyone to choose their neighbor. This is against the principle of brotherhood."Justice Suryakant said that Section 6A clearly defines the conditions for migrants between 1966 and 1971. This law is neither arbitrary nor unfair. Along with this, he clarified that this section is not contradictory with Section 9 of the Citizenship Act.Background of Section 6ASection 6A is a special provision of the Citizenship Act 1955, which was enacted in 1985 following the Assam Accord. This provision grants citizenship to foreign refugees who came to India after 1 January 1966 but before 25 March 1971. During the Assam Movement, local people demanded the removal of illegal refugees from Bangladesh, following which the agreement was passed.However, some groups in Assam challenged this provision, saying that this section legitimises illegal infiltration from Bangladesh. They claimed that it violates Articles 14, 21, and 29, but the Supreme Court rejected this argument by a majority of 4:1.ConclusionThis decision of the Supreme Court gives a decisive turn to the long-running legal and political debate between the citizens of Assam and illegal migrants. Holding Section 6A constitutional confirms the validity of the Assam Accord and provides a legal solution to the problem of illegal refugees. This decision of the court can prove to be an important reference point not only for Assam but also for the rest of India, where the issue of illegal migration and refugees continues to be discussed.