New Delhi: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that Assam was never a part of Myanmar and senior advocate Kapil Sibal made an incorrect reference to Assam being part of Myanmar, saying “he had read a wrong book of history”. A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud is hearing 17 petitions challenging 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.
Mehta, representing the Centre, said before the bench, also comprising justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, “I don’t think that may have a purpose for deciding the validity of Section 6A. But, some history was referred to by my learned senior friend (senior advocate Kapil Sibal). It seems he had read the wrong book of history. Assam was never a part of Myanmar”.
Mehta stressed, “Assam was never a part, because Myanmar now has maximum immigration and therefore to say it (Assam) was always a part of (not correct)…”. Defending his submissions, Sibal said, “Today what is Assam…. the British took it over. That is what I said. It is in the chapter (of the history book) and quite frankly the website of the Assam government also says the same thing…”.
Mehta said I don’t want to join issues on that and it was a wrong book my friend read. Sibal said the Assam government’s website says exactly that, and added “Let us not get into it…”. Mehta said I will leave it at that and don’t want to embarrass Sibal. Mehta said, “The issue of influx from Myanmar is pending separately before your lordships and there are other issues also pending. Therefore, this is confined to the validity of Section 6A”. The CJI said let us confine ourselves to the validity of Section 6A and move on with the proceedings. The hearing will continue in the afternoon session.
Last week, Sibal, commencing his arguments on behalf of the respondents, reportedly had submitted that migration of people in the population is embedded in history and cannot be mapped. He contended that Assam was a part of Myanmar and then the British conquered a part of it and that is how Assam was handed over to the British, and "you can now imagine the amount of movement of people that took place and under the partition, East Bengal and Assam became one...". Sibal said that the interaction and absorption of the Bengali population in Assam has a historical context.
Further citing his example, Sibal said, "We (Sibals) were also displaced from Lahore and my maternal grandparents were killed. We also came here and when partition took place, people from Bengali ethnicity will try to come...”. He contended that the petitioner’s contention saying that this disrupted the cultural ambience of Assam is constitutionally unavailable and I have the complete fundamental right to move from one part of the country to another.
