News Desk (National) Sangbad Voice 9: New Delhi: The Supreme Court, on
October 17, rendered a pivotal decision affirming the constitutional legitimacy
of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act of 1955, which enshrines the Assam Accord,
with a decisive 4:1 majority. The 5-Judge Constitution Bench, presided over by
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, included Justices Surya Kant, MM
Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra in its deliberations.
Justice Pardiwala dissented, contending that Section 6A should be deemed
unconstitutional, albeit with prospective implications. In his pronouncement,
CJI Chandrachud articulated that the Assam Accord represented a political
remedy to the quandary of unlawful migration, while Section 6A constituted the
legislative antidote. The majority opinion underscored that Parliament
possessed the requisite legislative authority to enact this provision, which
was designed to harmonize humanitarian considerations with the imperative of safeguarding
the indigenous populace.
Furthermore, the majority opined that the differentiation of Assam from
other states sharing extensive borders with Bangladesh was justifiable, given
that the proportion of immigrants relative to the local demographic in Assam
was significantly elevated compared to its neighboring states. The
ramifications of approximately 40 lakh migrants in Assam are markedly more
pronounced than the 57 lakh migrants in West Bengal, attributable to Assam's
considerably smaller land area.
The majority also deemed the cut-off date of March 25, 1971, as rational,
correlating it with the conclusion of the Bangladesh liberation war. The intent
behind this provision must be contextualized within the historical backdrop of
the Bangladesh conflict. The majority maintained that Section 6A was
"neither overinclusive nor underinclusive."
CJI Chandrachud further noted that the mere coexistence of diverse ethnic
groups within a state does not inherently infringe upon the fundamental right
to preserve linguistic and cultural heritage as enshrined in Article 29(1) of
the Constitution. The onus lies on the petitioners to substantiate claims that
the presence of one ethnic group impedes another's ability to safeguard its
language and culture.
.jpeg)
