A view of the SC
Credit: Reuters Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce its judgment on Thursday on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6A which was inserted in the Citizenship Act, 1955, after the signing of the Assam accord on August 15, 1985.
A Constitution bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices Surya Kant, M M Sundresh, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, had reserved the judgment in the matter on December 12, 2023.
The court had heard arguments from Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, senior advocates Shyam Divan, Kapil Sibal, Sanjay Hedge, C U Singh and others, for four days before wrapping up the hearing.
The court had earlier questioned the government as to what steps have been taken so far to curb illegal migration into Indian territory and directed it to furnish data on the number of Bangladeshi immigrants granted citizenship in Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, under section 6A (2)of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
During the hearing, Mehta had highlighted the progress on fencing the border in West Bengal.
He said that the Centre’s efforts were hindered due to West Bengal's "non-cooperation".
One counsel submitted that while the western border was clearly drawn, on the eastern border, it was kept fluid.
He contended that the Indian citizenship is not ethno-nationalist. He said it is not based on language, religion, culture and also there is no superior or inferior citizenship based on ancestry of any time.
Senior advocate C U Singh submitted 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 said that Section 6A, which allowed the determination of foreigners as per the Assam Accord, did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
Advocate Shadan Farasat for a party said that though there is importance of the right to culture, it should not be used to deny someone citizenship.
He raised concerns about the potential shift from civic nationalism to cultural nationalism and questioned the idea of elevating culture to the extent of denying citizenship.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, for the petitioners, submitted that there was no temporal limit to the operation of Section 6A, meaning that individuals could still apply for citizenship under Section 6A today.
He said there was no machinery or mechanism for evaluating, assessing, or determining the grant of citizenship under Section 6A (2) and said that this was a "fatal flaw" in the scheme of Section 6A.
The provision was inserted into the Act in December 1985 in furtherance of the Assam Accord. The Assam Accord was an agreement between the Union government and the All Assam Students Union (AASU) and the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP).
The Assam group raised agitation against an influx of Bangladeshi-immigrants after Bangladesh, then known as East Pakistan, separated from West Pakistan on March 26, 1971. Section 6A was added to the Citizenship Act to assuage AASU and AAGSP’s concerns and identify and expel foreign immigrants who entered Assam after March 25, 1971.
However, Section 6A granted citizenship to all immigrants who entered Assam from Bangladesh before January 1, 1966. Further, immigrants who entered Assam between January 1, 1966 and March 24, 1971 were considered as Indian citizens without voting privileges for 10 years.