Supreme Court Deliberates on Section 6A of Citizenship Act: Examining Government’s Role in Assam’s Welfare
The Supreme Court of India, while hearing petitions challenging Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, has made significant observations regarding the government’s role in making political compromises for the nation’s welfare. The Constitution Bench, comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, emphasized that the government must be given leeway to address expedient problems of the moment.
Also read- Supreme Court Examines Section 6A Of Citizenship Act (lawchakra.in)
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing various petitioners, argued against Section 6A, which allows foreign migrants who came to Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, to seek Indian citizenship. Divan contended that this provision operated in a blanket manner without specific determination, potentially encouraging false claims and disproportionately impacting Assam. He also argued that the classification of Assam, as opposed to other border states like West Bengal and Tripura, lacked reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Responding to these arguments, CJI Chandrachud observed,
“Can parliament say that we are doing this to bring about peace in a strife-ridden state? Or should we continue that strife merely because we will be discriminating between states? These are vexed issues. The situation of Assam in 1985 – there was so much violence. Any solution they would have found is bound to be an inexact solution. There cannot be a mathematical solution.”
The CJI further noted that the government should be given latitude, especially in states affected by insurgency and violence. He stated,
“We must also give the government that latitude. Even today we have states in the North East, we may not name them, but there are states affected by insurgency, affected by violence. We have to give the government that leeway to make adjustments necessary to save the nation. Maybe 25 years later it may appear – that why did you make that concession when the nation is stable. But at that moment, these are compromises that the government has to make to save the overall well-being of the nation.”
Also read- Lok Sabha Passes Landmark Jammu And Kashmir Bills: A Legislative Milestone (lawchakra.in)
Senior Advocate KN Choudhury, also arguing for the petitioners, criticized Section 6A as prioritizing and protecting immigrants at the expense of the indigenous people of Assam. He described the legislation as a “Parliamentary joke” and asserted that it violated both Part II and Part III of the Constitution, including Article 13, characterizing it as “stillborn legislation.”
Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria added that India had refugee policies for Tibetans, Chakmas, Rohingyas, and Tamils but did not confer citizenship in the same manner as Section 6A. He argued that this was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The CJI countered this by emphasizing the need for a contextual interpretation of constitutional provisions. He asserted that Parliament had the authority to legislate and confer citizenship, stating,
“Article 6 confers citizenship on a class of persons who migrated from Pakistan. That doesn’t dilute the power of Parliament under Articles 245 and 246 and Entry 17 to confer extended citizenship from Pakistan itself, forget Bangladesh! We can’t look at constitutional provisions in the abstract. Article 6 deals with the partition. Large number of persons were fleeing from Pakistan to India because of the sheer violence. Article 6 protected those people. The last thing we can say is that they were conferring citizenship to citizens of Pakistan. Parliament was looking at the whole human sufferings.”
The hearing continues as the Court delves deeper into the complexities of the Citizenship Act and its implications for the people of Assam and the nation.