Last Updated on December 6, 2023 9: 15am
Guwahati: On the first day of the hearings on Tuesday, regarding a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, the Supreme Court Constitution Bench asked the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta to provide official data on how many people benefitted from Section 6A of the Act.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud along with Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra heard Senior Advocate Shyam Divan argue in favour of the petitioners.
The Apex court said that there was no material before it that could indicate that the effect of granting Indian citizenship to Bangladeshi immigrants between 1966 and 1971 was so great that it impacted the demographic and cultural identity of the border state.
While acknowledging the problem of cross-border infiltration in Assam, Chief Justice Chandrachud referred to the humanitarian aspect of the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war for the liberation of Bangladesh which also led to the influx of immigrants.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
Section 6A was inserted in the Citizenship Act as a special provision to deal with the citizenship of people covered under the Assam Accord.
It says those who came to Assam on or after January 1, 1966, but before March 25, 1971, from specified territories, including Bangladesh, in accordance with the Citizenship Act amended in 1985, and since then are residents of the northeastern state, must register themselves under Section 18 for acquiring Indian citizenship.
As a result, the provision fixes March 25, 1971, as the cut-off date for granting citizenship to Bangladeshi migrants in Assam.
”But to test your argument there is no material before us to indicate that the impact of granting certain benefits to citizens who came in between 1966-71 was so grave that the demographic and cultural identity of the state was affected by those five years,” the bench told senior advocate Shyam Divan who said the socio-cultural, economic and other rights of the indigenous people are getting affected due to the influx and the special provision.
The hearing will continue on Wednesday.