New Delhi, Oct 17 (PTI) The following are the key contentions of the parties over the issue of the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act which grants citizenship to immigrants from Bangladesh who entered Assam on or after January 1, 1966 but before March 25, 1971.
A Constitution bench by its 4:1 majority verdict upheld the constitutional validity of the provision.
In 1985, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 1985 was enacted to include Section 6A to the Citizenship Act.
Contentions of petitioners against the provision: *Operation of Section 6A violates the preambular values enshrined in the Constitution.
* Presence of Bangladeshi immigrants in Assam poses a threat to the unity and integrity of the country.
*Section 6A, which grants citizenship to immigrants, contradicts Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution, which prescribe a different regime for granting citizenship to people who migrated to Pakistan or who migrated to India from Pakistan.
*Section 6A violates Article 9 of the Constitution and Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, as it allows dual nationality by not requiring immigrants to renounce their previous citizenship.
*The provision violates Article 14, treating equals unequally by applying the provision only to Assam without any intelligible differentia.
*Section 6A goes against the principles of democracy, federalism, and the rule of law, susceptible to being struck down on grounds of “manifest arbitrariness”.
* Lack of rationale in the cut-off dates and the absence of a mechanism to determine “ordinary residence”.
*Section 6A infringes on Article 21 by impinging upon the rights of the indigenous Assamese community and violating their right to self-governance under Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
*Inclusion of an unidentified migrant population burdens the country’s natural resources, which goes against sustainable development mandated under Article 21.
*Demographic shift due to the influx of migrants from East Pakistan threatens Assamese culture and breaches Article 29(1).
*Violation of Article 355 as the ongoing presence of millions of Bangladeshi immigrants has precipitated ethnic clashes amounting to “external aggression” and resulting in “internal disturbance”.
Contentions of parties including Centre which supported Section 6A: *SC must refrain from delving into the matter on account of the issues raised in the context of foreign policy.
*Foreign policy is traditionally excluded from the purview of judicial review.
*Section 6A, which was introduced in 1985, cannot be challenged after a delay of 27 years.
*The provision reinforces the idea of fraternity, in the absence of which society would be broken into a division between “others” and “us”.
*The word “fraternity” encompasses equal regard among individuals, preventing societal division into distinct groups.
*The cut-off dates align with the permit system and are not violative of the Constitution.
*A statute cannot be struck down as violative of Article 14 merely because it does not include all relevant classes, as the Parliament can decide the degrees of harm it wants to legislate.
*There is an underlying rationale for the cut-off dates and that the objective behind Section 6A and the Assam Accord reflects the constitutional tradition of accommodating differences through asymmetric federal arrangements.
*Article 21 protects the Assamese community and the rights of foreigners affected by Section 6A.
*Section 6A not violative of Article 21 as it is a lawfully established procedure.
*Demographic shifts attributed to Section 6A are unrelated; Article 29(1)’s endeavour was to promote multi-culturalism rather than cultural exclusivity.
*Need to harmonise domestic law with international norms; prohibition of statelessness is a recognised international norm.
* Rendering Section 6A unconstitutional would risk statelessness for the immigrants. PTI MNL AMK MNL AMK AMK
About the Author
