Section 6A Citizenship Act enacted in aftermath of Bangladesh liberation, different from giving immigrants amnesty: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday noted that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which concerns the grant of Indian citizenship to immigrants covered by the Assam accord, was introduced partly to remedy the atrocities committed on the population of East Bengal in the aftermath of the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war [In Re: Section 6A Citizenship Act 1955]..Therefore, it cannot be likened to an amnesty scheme for illegal immigrants in general, the Court orally observed while replying to an argument that the population of immigrants had surged due to the said provision. .A Constitution bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act.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..On Tuesday, the CJI remarked that the validity of this Section cannot be determined by political and other developments that arose after its enactment."We are looking at something which is frozen in time. We cannot adjudge the validity of the Section (based) on what happened after the (Assam) Accord," the CJI said..Senior Advocate Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the All Assam Ahom Association and other petitioners, argued that Section 6A would still be completely bad by itself."We have shown the amendment does not stand on its own legs. Look at the influx. And today, as the result of not remedying the law, it has been given a complete go by and this has been used as a shield. I say the provision is only bad completely.".The CJI responded by pointing out that there were historical reasons that triggered the insertion of Section 6A. "If parliament were to merely grant amnesty to a group of illegal immigrants it would have been different situation. Section 6A was enacted a time when there was a different history, and India had an important role to play in Bangladesh liberation war, and we were a part of the war as much as Bangladesh. This was for the atrocities which were being committed on the population of East Bengal then," he explained. .Tuesday marked Day 1 of final hearing in a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. The outcome of this case will have a major bearing on the National Register of Citizens (NRC) list..During today's hearing, Divan recounted that Section 6A arose from the Assam Accord, a document signed between various protesting student groups and the Rajiv-Gandhi-led Central government in 1985. The same led to the conclusion of a six-year, non-violent agitation against infiltration by allegedly illegal immigrants from Bangladesh into Assam.Divan contended that Section 6A violates the basic fabric of the Constitution of India and the values of secularism, fraternity and brotherhood contained in the Preamble. He argued that the provision entailed a subversion of the cultural rights of border States."It also violates Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Also, these are political rights with respect to the citizen and there is destruction and undermining of these rights as well. We also assail this on the legislative competence aspect. Cultural rights of the border States cannot be subverted completely. If it do so, then all States will have to bear burden of this as well," he said. .Divan urged the Court to direct the Union government frame a court-monitored policy for all States and Union Territories towards the settlement and rehabilitation of all the persons who came to Assam..The Court, however, pointed out that Section 6A only concerned the Assam Accord. The bench also questioned whether there was anything to show that the provision had led to an irreversible impact in the demographics of the north-eastern State."To test your argument, there is no material before us to show that population who came from 1966 to 1971 was so much that it had an irreversible impact on the demographics. For the quantum of illegal immigration, you have to show that Assam was at par with other border States. We have always allowed an under inclusive legislation by the Parliament. Assam has a problem of infiltration but here we are on the Section 6A ... Agitation was to curb the infiltration and this was a political compromise," the CJI observed..Divan, however, maintained that Section 6A was unjustified and cannot stand. The senior counsel argued that there was an enormous political impact involved. "Theirs' (settlers who entered before 1971 and before the Assam Accord) is a whole set of rights and entitlements all the way upto citizenship. Otherwise my land is going to a great extent and the political impact is going to be enormous. Registration of birth was significantly higher among them, there are a likelihood of range of responses from the State. We are saying whether this statutory response can stand constitutional scrutiny or not. Look at the lawful impact on the citizens of the State," he argued. .Divan added that the idea of "fraternity" under the Indian Constitution means fraternity between Indian citizens."The fraternity that the Constitution speaks of is something between the citizens and not something which is of a global nature! This is the preambular reading," he asserted. .Meanwhile, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta appeared for the Central government and emphasised today that the NRC was not a point of contention in the instant case. To a question by the bench, he also answered that about 5,45,000 (5.45 lakhs) people were benefitted by the provision as per a Parliamentarian..To another query by the CJI on whether anyone could avail of the benefit of Section 6A after 2013, the SG replied in the negative. The bench then asked for an official reply on this aspect including how many foreigners have been registered since as citizens..The hearing will continue tomorrow..[Follow our live-coverage of today's hearing]