Guwahati: The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday is hearing the petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud and also comprising Justices Surya Kant, M.M. Sundresh, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra are hearing the arguments.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
Section 6A is a special provision inserted into the 1955 Act in furtherance of a Memorandum of Settlement called the ‘Assam Accord’ signed on August 15, 1985, by the then Rajiv Gandhi Government with the leaders of the Assam Movement to preserve and protect the Assamese culture, heritage, linguistic and social identity.
The Accord came at the end of a six-year-long agitation by the All Assam Students Union (AASU) to identify and deport illegal immigrants, mostly from neighbouring Bangladesh, from the State. Under Section 6A, foreigners who had entered Assam before January 1, 1966, and been “ordinarily resident” in the State, would have all the rights and obligations of Indian citizens. However, those who had entered the State between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, would have the same rights and obligations except that they would not be able to vote for 10 years.
While hearing the petition, CJI Chandrachud said that Section 6A was enacted at a point that is deeply connected to our history; it was a humanitarian measure.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
“‘One thing you have to bear in mind is that 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 that is deeply connected to our history. India had a very vital role in the liberation of Bangladesh. We were part of the war as much as Bangladesh was. Parliament seems to have proceeded on the basis that the immigration which took place cannot be regarded purely as illegal but it was something humanitarian. It was humanitarian in the aspect of the atrocities committed on the population of the then East Pakistan which is why India intervened. This was not just looked at by parliament as illegal immigration. It is interwoven in our history,” the CJI said.