New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, relating to granting Indian citizenship to illegal immigrants in Assam. This decision has brought a new twist to the issue of granting citizenship to illegal immigrants in Assam since the Assam Accord of 1985. A 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court upheld Section 6A as constitutionally valid by a 4:1 majority. This bench, headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, included Justice Surya Kant, Justice MM Sundaresh, Justice Manoj Mishra and Justice JB Pardiwala.
What did the Congress MP say on the court’s decision?
The statement of Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi has come to light regarding the decision of the Supreme Court. He said, ‘I respect the Supreme Court’s decision to support the Assam Accord. The Assam Accord was a historic agreement that established peace in the state after years of political agitation. During that time, the late Prime Minister of India Rajiv Gandhi used to talk to student leaders despite political differences. Today the scenario is different. The BJP calls the protesters traitors and Khalistanis, or like in Manipur, Prime Minister Modi pretends as if the state does not exist.
What decision did the Supreme Court give?
Delivering the verdict in the case, CJI Chandrachud said that Section 6A was a political solution to a problem unique to Assam. He said that large-scale influx of illegal immigrants into the state after the creation of Bangladesh had posed a serious threat to the culture and demography of Assam. One of the major reasons for the student movement in Assam was the dilution of voting rights of the native population of the state due to massive illegal migration from Bangladesh and Section 6A attempted to remedy this dire situation.
The Supreme Court also upheld the cut-off date of March 24, 1971 for entry of Bangladeshi immigrants. The court said that India had adopted a sympathetic stance in view of the atrocities committed against Bangladeshis during Pakistan’s Operation Searchlight. The court said that after March 1971, the influx of migrants was viewed differently by the government.
Justice Kant gave a different decision
In a separate opinion, Justice Surya Kant, writing for himself and Justice MM Sundaresh and Justice Manoj Mishra, concurred with CJI Chandrachud’s opinion. However, Justice Kant took a closer look at Section 6A and said that the government was able to take steps to protect law and order as well as the interests of citizens.
What is Section 6A of the Citizenship Act?
Section 6A was added to the Citizenship Act after the signing of the Assam Accord in 1985. The agreement came after a six-year-long agitation between the Rajiv Gandhi government at the Center and the All Assam Students Union (AASU) against the entry of migrants from Bangladesh into Assam. An important aspect of the Assam Accord was to decide who was a foreigner in the state. Clause 5 of the Assam Accord states that January 1, 1966, will serve as the base cut-off date for detection and removal of ‘foreigners’, but it also contains provisions for regularizing those who Came into the state after that date and up to March 24, 1971.
To facilitate this, Section 6A was included in the Citizenship Act. All persons of ‘Indian origin’ who entered the state before 1 January 1966 and are resident in Assam since then shall be deemed to be citizens of India. It further provides that whoever entered and resided in Assam after 1 January 1966 but before 24 March 1971 and who is found to be a foreigner, shall have an opportunity to register himself in accordance with rules made by the Central Government . Those who entered after March 24, 1971 will be considered illegal immigrants.