AASU chief adviser Samujjal Bhattacharjya said with its order on Section 6A of Citizenship Act 1955, the Supreme Court has given its stamp of approval to the Assam Accord under which all those who had entered Assam illegally must be detected and deported from the country.
“….. The magnitude of influx to Assam and its impact on the cultural and political rights of the Assamese and Tribal populations is higher [than elsewhere],” CJI D Y Chandrachud said in his ruling.
He noted that although West Bengal has a higher immigrant population than Assam, the impact on Assam is greater because of its smaller size and population.
It is, therefore, “rational” to classify Assam as separate from other border states for the purposes of 6A, he held.
Section 6A was inserted into the Citizenship Act as a special provision to deal with the citizenship of people covered under the 1985 Assam Accord signed by the Rajiv Gandhi government with the AASU, then headed by Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, who later twice became chief minister of Assam.
Justice Surya Kant held that “since a piquant situation such as that in Assam [because of the Movement] did not exist in any of the other states, Section 6A’s objective did not extend to allowing such citizenship in these other States”.
By upholding Section 6A, the Supreme Court held that March 25, 1971 – the cut-off date mentioned in the 1985 Assam Accord – is constitutionally valid for determining the citizenship status for migrants who came to Assam from Bangladesh.
The BJP has welcomed the Supreme Court judgment upholding the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the 1955 Citizenship Act, which grants citizenship to immigrants who entered Assam up to March 25, 1971.
A section of the Assam BJP, however, took a different position, expressing dissent over the top court’s verdict. The BJP officially welcomed the ruling in Delhi, but party MP from Assam’s Darrang-Udalguri Dilip Saikia told The Indian Express that although he accepts the judgment and respects the court but it is “unfortunate” that Assam would have to “bear the burden of foreigners who came to India till 20 years later than the rest of India”.
The cut-off date for citizenship for the rest of India is 1951 but we have to take 1971 as this date as per the Supreme Court’s judgment. For 20 additional years, we have to bear the burden of foreigners, meaning Bangladeshis, who came here. This is unfortunate for Assam),” Saikia claimed.
Assam Pradesh Congress Committee) president Bhupen Borah said that the apex court expressed its confidence in the Assam Accord for the second time.
The Congress continues to respect the Assam Accord signed on August 15, 1985. “Since former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was the signatory from the central government, we continue to claim ourselves as one of the signatories of the tripartite accord. Not only the Congress, BJP leader Atal Bihari Vajpayee and various parties and organizations of Assam termed the Assam Accord as a historic document,” he said.
Borah, however, said - "The CAA killed the soul of the Assam Accord. The Congress never accepted the CAA, with which the APPC had to take a different stance with the AICC (All India Congress Committee). We had to pacify AICC leader Rahul Gandhi on the CAA, and that prompted him to declare at a public rally at Khanapara in Guwahati that the Congress would oppose the CAA."
We still stand on Rahul Gandhi’s commitment to the people of Assam on CAA. We will abolish the CAA as a mark of respect to the soul of the Assam Accord as and when we come to power.”
The Assam Jatiya Parishad (AJP) also welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the constitutional validity of Clause 6A of the Citizenship Act.
The party’s President, Lurinjyoti Gogoi, and General Secretary, Jagadish Bhuyan, in a press statement, said- “With this ruling, the constitutional validity of the Assam Accord has been reaffirmed. The justice of our long-standing position, that the cut-off year for citizenship should be 1971, has been proven. It also demonstrates that the BJP’s stance on deporting foreigners is misleading and self-serving.”
Pointers :
* By upholding Section 6A, the Supreme Court held that March 25, 1971 – the cut-off date mentioned in the 1985 Assam Accord – is constitutionally valid for determining the citizenship status for migrants who came to Assam from Bangladesh.
Senior BJP leader and former Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, however, maintained: “The five-judge Supreme Court Bench has rejected all the petitions challenging Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. This law states that those who migrated to Assam till 1966 are considered citizens of Assam and those who came here between 1966 and 1971 will be considered citizens with some terms.... and those who came after 1971 will be declared foreigners and will be deported.
This law was challenged but today, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court gave recognition to this Act.” In the BJP circle, the emerging refrain is - "what ultimately matters in public life and governance is what is practicable".
But BJP lawmaker Saika for his part called for a “serious look” at the issue of influx of migrants into Assam.
“We are working to implement the Assam Accord. Assam ka jo influx issue hai seriously isko ek baar dekhna padega ....The issue of the influx of migrants into Assam should be looked at seriously, as the demography of Assam has changed fast and the domination of those people in the Assembly and the Lok Sabha is also increasing),” he alleged.
The Assam MP also said the government has taken forward the implementation of the Assam Accord. “The central and state governments as well as the All Assam Students Union (AASU) will meet and discuss the issue,” he said.
Another BJP leader from Assam, on condition of anonymity, said that he was hoping that 1951 would be set as the cut-off date. Another party leader said he would consult experts before voicing his opinion on the apex court’s decision.
The verdict has importance not just for Assam, where politics has long been shaped by issues of migration and demography, but also for wider issues of citizenship and Parliament’s powers in this regard.
The majority comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, and Justices Surya Kant, M M Sundresh and Manoj Misra, upheld Section 6A of The Citizenship Act, 1955, which codified the political consensus of the 1985 Assam Accord. Justice J B Pardiwala dissented.
The tripartite Assam Accord signed among the central and Assam governments and the leaders of the Assam Movement set January 1, 1966 as the base cut-off date for the detection of “foreigners” and their deletion from electoral rolls. It also provided a process for the grant of citizenship to those who arrived in the state after that date, upto March 24, 1971.
The legal scheme for granting citizenship for those who migrated from Pakistan is in Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution. The petitioners argued that Section 6A, which deals with migrants from East Pakistan (later Bangladesh) amends this provision — a change that can only be made through a constitutional amendment.
CJI Chandrachud held that Articles 6 and 7 are only meant to determine citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution on January 26, 1950. Section 6A, on the other hand, “deals with those who are not covered by the constitutional provisions”.
Justice Kant in his majority opinion (for himself and Justices Sundresh and Misra) wrote that “Section 6A aligns with the fundamental purpose of Articles 6 and 7, which was to extend citizenship rights to those affected by the country’s partition”.
As Articles 6 and 7 were aimed at safeguarding the rights of those citizens who found themselves residing in Pakistan after Partition, Section 6A grants citizenship to persons of Indian origin migrating from erstwhile East Pakistan “due to political disturbances in a foreign territory”, the court held.
Both CJI Chandrachud and Justice Kant referred to Entry 17 of the Union List, which gives Parliament the power to make laws to address “Citizenship, naturalisation and aliens”.
They also referred to Article 11 of the Constitution, under which Parliament can make “any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship”. None of the other Articles in this Part of the Constitution (including Articles 6 and 7) will “derogate” or take away from this power, they said.
*** That Parliament can amend the law relating to citizenship is the most significant takeaway from the ruling — since this could have ramifications for other cases, including the challenge to the 2019 Citizenship (Amendment) Act.
The petitioners argued that Section 6A, which was specifically drafted for Assam, violates the principle of equality because (i) it confers citizenship only to migrants to Assam, and (ii) if curbing Bangladeshi migrants is the issue, then other border states are also excluded. They also argued that the March 24, 1971 cut-off date is arbitrary. The SC held that the events leading up to the signing of the Assam Accord placed the state in a unique position, even when compared to other border states.
Does Section 6A facilitate “external aggression” by allowing illegal immigration?
The petitioners argued that extending the cut-off date to include migrants as citizens went against the SC’s ruling in Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union of India (2005), in which the court held that “illegal immigration” falls under the definition of “external aggression”.
In Sonowal case, the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 (IMDT Act) was under challenge.
The court struck down the law, which also applied only to Assam, saying it was ineffective in dealing with illegal immigration in comparison to laws such as the Foreigners Act, 1946, which applied to the entire country.
Both CJI Chandrachud and Justice Kant expressed reservations in applying Sonowal in the challenge to Section 6A.
Justice Sueya Kant held that Section 6A does not allow for “unabated migration”, and instead offers a “practical solution” in the form of a “controlled and regulated form of immigration”, which does not amount to “external aggression”.
CJI Chandrachud asked whether a law be challenged for “violating” Article 355, which is an Emergency Provision under the Constitution. Allowing this would lead to “disastrous consequences”, and would open the doors for petitions seeking to invoke other emergency powers which “would effectively place the emergency powers with citizens and courts”, he said.
** IN 1985, in order to give effect to the Assam Accord, Section 6A was introduced in The Citizenship Act, 1955. The petitioners argued that this section was arbitrary and discriminatory, as it applied only to Assam.
** THE CAA, 2019, introduced another group-specific section, Section 6B, in The Citizenship Act, which set December 31, 2014 as the cutoff date for Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Parsi, Buddhist, and Jain migrants from the Muslim majority countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan.
ends
No comments:
Post a Comment