The Supreme Court Constitution Bench on January 10, while hearing petitions challenging Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, opined that it needed to decide whether the provision was constitutionally valid before looking into other matters in the case. Section 6A deals with “special provisions” concerning the citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord. A Constitution Bench presided over by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, and Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha had posted the plea for guidelines. The Constitution Bench will take up the matter after it completes hearing pleas emerging from the split in the Shiv Sena. The petition is listed for February 14, 2023.
The primary issue framed by the bench was “Whether Section 6A of the Citizenship Act suffers from any constitutional infirmity?”. All the other constitutional issues that had come up in the matter were covered under this issue, as the CJI was of the opinion that several of the issues are contours of the same issue. However, this shall not avert the bench from looking into other facets of the matter. The bench stated that the petitioners would argue first, followed by the central government, and after that, intervenors and others can advance their submissions.
Illegal immigrants have existed for a long time in Assam, especially since the Bangladesh liberation war. The contested provision lays down that all those who came to Assam on or after January 1, 1966, and before March 25, 1971, from the specified territory (including all territories of Bangladesh at the time of commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985), and are residents of Assam since then, must register themselves under Section 18 for citizenship. Therefore, the provision fixes March 25, 1971 as the cut-off date for granting citizenship to Bangladeshi migrants in Assam. The provision was presented in 1985 when the Assam accord was signed between the Government of India and protesting groups.
The Assam Accord is a Memorandum of Settlement (MoS), signed in August 15, 1985, by the Union government, the All-Assam Students’ Union (AASU) and the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad ended the six-year bloody agitation (1979-1985) to detect, disenfranchise and deport “illegal” residents from the State. The problem of illegal immigrants fuelled enormous demonstrations for six years, starting 1979 when a Lok Sabha by-poll was to be conducted at Mangaldoi seat. Several outfits with All Assam Students Union (AASU) constituting the nerve centre of the protests, voiced their criticism about foreigners, primarily Bangladeshis, having been given a place in the voters’ list. The Indira Gandhi Government continued to communicate with the demonstrators between 1980 and 1984 but did not reach a pact. After her assassination, the Rajiv Gandhi government entered into an agreement with the agitators, namely AASU and All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad, concluding the demonstrations.
The Court had appointed lawyers Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, assisting Sibal, and Diksha Rai, the counsel appearing with Attorney General R Venkataramani as the nodal counsel. Around 17 petitions, including the one filed by Assam Public Works in 2009, are pending before the Supreme court.
