The Supreme Court of India, in a significant move, has commenced hearings on the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. This provision, which emerged from the Assam Accord, addresses the citizenship status of individuals who migrated from specified territories, including Bangladesh, to Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971.
Also read- Supreme Court Stays Proceedings Against Journalist Over Manipur Tweets (lawchakra.in)
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, leading a five-judge Constitution bench, raised a critical query to the Centre regarding the number of people who availed citizenship under Section 6A since its inception. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the court that he would gather and present the necessary details. The bench, also comprising Justices A S Bopanna, M M Sundresh, J B Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, emphasized the importance of considering the historical context in which Section 6A was enacted, particularly India’s role in the Bangladesh Liberation War and the humanitarian crisis that ensued.
CJI Chandrachud, delving into the historical significance of the provision, remarked,
“How many people took citizenship in pursuance of this provision when Section 6A was in practical operation-the practical operation came to an end on July 16, 2013?”
He further added,
“We have to look at it from a broader perspective, that there was a war in Bangladesh.”
The Chief Justice pointed out the unique circumstances surrounding the enactment of Section 6A, stating,
“If the Parliament were to merely grant amnesty to a group of illegal immigrants, that would be a different situation. But we can’t deny that Section 6A was enacted at a point which is deeply connected to our history, namely India had a very vital role in the creation of Bangladesh because we were part of the war as much as Bangladesh was.”
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the petitioners, argued against the provision, contending that it undermines the constitutional values of secularism, fraternity, and brotherhood. He stated,
“It also violates Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Also, these are political rights with respect to the citizen and there is destruction and undermining of these rights as well. We also assail this on the legislative competence aspect. Cultural rights of the border States cannot be subverted completely. If it do so, then all States will have to bear burden of this as well.”
The Chief Justice, while acknowledging the petitioners’ concerns, emphasized the need to assess the constitutional validity of Section 6A in the context of the period between 1966 and 1971. He questioned whether the operation of this provision during that time led to a radical change in the cultural identity of Assam. The Chief Justice also noted that the impact of such legislation might vary across states, and it is within the Parliament’s purview to legislate accordingly.
The Supreme Court’s inquiry extends to understanding the demographic and cultural impact of the legislation during the specified period. The hearing is set to continue, with the court seeking detailed information from the Centre on the beneficiaries of Section 6A from 1966 to July 16, 2013. This case represents a crucial examination of India’s legislative response to historical events and its implications on the nation’s constitutional and cultural fabric.
