New Delhi: The Supreme Court Wednesday observed that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, may not have been meant for the benefit of all citizens as it could have been brought in specifically to resolve violence prevailing in Assam, and the government should be given leeway if a compromise is necessary to save the nation.
A five-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud noted that the court cannot look at constitutional provisions in the abstract and that Section 6A deals with the partition. The apex court noted that the Assam Accord of 1985 and the new citizenship regime which followed in its wake might have been an “adjustment” reached by the Rajiv Gandhi government. It said it could have been brought in to calm the waves of violent anti-immigrant protests that rolled over the northeastern state for years and also threatened national peace.
The bench noted that a large number of persons were fleeing (from Bangladesh) to India because of the sheer violence, and Section 6A protected those people. "The last thing we can say is that they were conferring citizenship to citizens of Pakistan, and Parliament was looking at the whole human suffering," the bench noted. The CJI said if Parliament is entitled to legislate to confer citizenship, it is not bound to recognise the refugee status and confer citizenship on every hue and dimension. “There may be people from different parts of the global south who may want to come into India... Parliament isn’t bound to pick out everyone”, added the CJI.
During the second day of the hearing, the apex court queried the petitioners’ counsel whether parliament should have let strife and violence continue in Assam by not clearing the way for the Assam Accord.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, representing one of the petitioners, argued against the validity of the provision by contending that the January 1, 1966 cut-off date operates in a blanket manner. Divan said the effect and impact of the provision is that people will continue to be in Assam and will act as a beacon for people to come to Assam and be there. He stressed that people who chose the Assam route to illegally enter the country can avail of benefits including citizenship.
The bench, also comprising justices Surya Kant, M M Sundresh, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said, “We have to give the government this latitude. Even today there are parts of the north-east, etc., which are plagued by insurgency, etc”.
The bench emphasized the government should be allowed to make such decisions to save the overall well-being of the (public). “Twenty-five years from now you may think why it was done, but you have to save the nation you see, that is now," said the bench. Divan vehemently argued that illegal immigrants have no rights in the eyes of the law and cannot be given those rights in Assam, and the government has an obligation to ensure that not only one state takes the burden of this influx, and the national interest has to be such that it is dispersed among different states.
Another counsel, representing one of the petitioners, said the provision was brought in with a brute majority in Parliament and added that this was by force, and how can such a provision be allowed at the cost of indigenous people at all? He said this was just a political settlement for vote bank politics, and how can it be the basis of the Assam Accord?
The counsel said that in some minority-dominated districts, Hindu prayers cannot be conducted. Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, representing one of the petitioners, said that all refugees are given citizenship after procedures but only those settling in Assam are not being made to undergo any checks. The hearing in the matter will continue on Thursday
The apex court is hearing 17 petitions to examine the constitutional validity of section 6A of the Citizenship Act relating to illegal immigrants in Assam. Section 6A in the Citizenship Act was inserted as a special provision to deal with the citizenship of people covered by the Assam Accord.
Also read:
