New Delhi. The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. Chief Justice D.Y. A five-judge bench headed by Chandrachud gave its verdict with a majority of 4:1. CJI D.Y. Chandrachud including Justice Surya Kant, Justice Manoj Mishra and Justice MM Sundaresh favored the validity of Section 6A, while Justice J. B. Pardiwala disagreed with this. CJI Chandrachud said in his judgment that the purpose of provision 6A should be understood in the background of the post-Bangladesh war. While tracking of foreigners is an elaborate process, the legislature has empowered the state to create the infrastructure. It is true that one cause of concern for the Assam Accord and the student movement was the weakening of rights.
The Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution bench upholds the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act inserted by way of an amendment in 1985 in furtherance of the Assam Accord. pic.twitter.com/I2waFAKhbl
— ANI (@ANI) October 17, 2024
At the same time, Justice Surya Kant, while reading the decision of himself, Justice Manoj Mishra and Justice MM Sundaresh, said that we have also upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A. We have rejected the objections to judicial review. We cannot allow anyone to choose their neighbors and it is against the principle of brotherhood. The principle is ‘live and let live.’ Justice Surya Kant said that Section 6A also grants citizenship to migrants for the first time and this is again different from the migrant class. We have also retained the power of Parliament to make laws on this issue. Section 6A does not contradict Section 9 of the Citizenship Act. Once immigrants become citizens of India, they are governed by the Constitution of India. This does not absolve them from obeying the laws of our country.
The bench said that on Article 14, courts are moderately tolerant under inclusive law provided there is a broad categorical classification based on intelligible difference. Whereas on Article 29, we have held that the petitioners have failed to show that there has been a serious impact on the Assamese culture and language. In fact it orders detection and deportation of illegal immigrants who entered the territory of India after the cut-off date of 1971. Due to the presence of any other group the petitioners have not been able to show constitutionally legitimate influence on their culture etc. We cannot accept that there has been any impact on the voting rights of Assamese. The petitioners have made no claim of violation of their statutory rights. Whereas, Justice J. B. Pardiwala dissented in the minority decision and held Section 6A of the Citizenship Act unconstitutional. He said that Section 6A was created to give legislative recognition to the political agreement. A part of the law may be lawful at the time of enactment but may become temporarily inappropriate as time passes.
What is the whole matter?
Section 6A was added to the Citizenship Act as a special provision in 1985 under the Assam Accord. According to this, those who came to Assam from Bangladesh between January 1, 1966 and March 25, 1971, will be given Indian citizenship. In the petitions filed in the Supreme Court, it was argued that due to illegal refugees from Bangladesh, the demographic balance of the state is deteriorating and the rights of the original inhabitants are being violated.
