India & World UpdatesHappeningsBreaking News
Sec 6(a) was intended to cut short the violence prevailing in Assam at that time: SC
way2barak, Dec 7 :The second day of hearing in the challenge to the validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 saw the Supreme Court question whether parliament should have let strife and violence continue in Assam by not clearing the way for the Assam accord.
Section 6A of the Citizenship Act concerns the grant of citizenship to immigrants who are covered by the Assam accord.
As per Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, people who entered India between January 1, 1966 and March 25, 1971 and have been living in Assam, will be allowed to register themselves as citizens. The outcome of this case will have a major bearing on the National Register of Citizens (NRC) list.
A Constitution bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra on Wednesday remarked that the said provision appeared to be a beneficial piece of legislation which was intended to cut short the violence prevailing in Assam at the time.
“So you are saying if benefit of 6A was to be given to all other border States like Tripura, West Bengal, then? … 6A is a beneficial provision,“ CJI Chandrachud observed, in response.
Divan replied beneficial provisions should be beneficial to a country’s citizens.
But the Court said that Section 6A may not have been meant for the benefit of all citizens, it could have been brought in specifically to resolve violence prevailing in the State of Assam.
But was this beneficial for all people similarly situated or cannot parliament say that to bring peace to a strife-ridden State … we are not doing this in other States? Situation of Assam was such that there was so much violence. There cannot be mathematical solutions to these cases,” the CJI said.
A batch of petitions have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 6A.
On Tuesday, the Court had noted that the provision was introduced partly to remedy the atrocities committed on the population of East Bengal in the aftermath of the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war.
Therefore, it cannot be likened to an amnesty scheme for illegal immigrants in general, the bench had orally observed. The CJI had also observed that the validity of the Section cannot be determined by political developments that arose after its enactment.
On Wednesday, Divan began his submissions against the validity of the provision by arguing that the January 1, 1966 cut off date operates in a blanket manner.
The effect of Section 6A is that immigrants would continue to remain in Assam since the provision requires its beneficiaries to be “ordinarily resident” in Assam.
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. No conditionality in place and very strong encouragement to people to remain ordinarily the resident of Assam … The entire notion of ordinarily resident of Assam nails and binds the person to Assam, and makes him stay there. This is a huge incentive as well, since there is no timeframe,” Divan said.
People who chose the “Assam route” to illegally enter the country can avail of benefits including citizenship, he added.
The Court, however, expressed that the government has to be given some space to take such decisions.
We have to give the government this latitude. Even today there are parts of the north-east, etc., which are plagued by insurgency, etc. You need to allow the government to take 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,” CJI Chandrachud said.
Divan then stressed that illegal immigrants have no rights in the eyes of law and cannot be given those rights in Assam. Doing so would be violative of Article 14 (right to equality before the law) of the Constitution of India, he said.
“There is an obligation on the Union of India 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 and so that we are not visited by this perpetuity for forever,” Divan contended.
Senior Advocate Kamal Nayan Choudhury, who also appeared for the petitioners, emphasised that the provision was brought in with brute majority in parliament.
“This was by force. How can such a provision be allowed at the cost of indigenous people at all? Affairs in Assam are such that indigenous people can contest polls from only 56 constituencies out of 90 plus in the State. This was just a political settlement for vote bank politics, and how can it be the basis of Assam accord? The exercise of a parliamentary exercise is being adjudged where a section of people have been reduced to minority,” he argued.
He added that in some minority-dominated districts, Hindu prayers cannot be conducted. Choudhury then sought to rely on an article from The Oriental Times, to make a further argument, which was promptly shot down by the Court.
We cannot rely on some article and decide a constitutional case based on this. You go to internet and find hundred such ones. There are no footnotes also,” the CJI said.
Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for the petitioners, argued that human rights cannot be extended to include the right to citizenship.
“Nothing can be adopted which is a threat to national interest,” he added.
All refugees are given citizenship after procedures but only those settling in Assam are not being made to undergo any checks, Hansaria further argued.
The hearing will be continued.
