Noting that the government should be given leeway if a ‘compromise’ is necessary to save the nation, Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud said the Assam Accord of 1985 and the new citizenship regime which followed in its wake might have been an “adjustment” reached by the Rajiv Gandhi government to calm the waves of violent anti-immigrant protests that rolled over the northeastern State for years and threatened national peace.
Supreme Court hearing on the challenge to Section 6A of the Citizenship Act | Day 2 updates
“You must give the government that latitude. Even today, there are States in the northeast affected by insurgency and violence… We have to give the government that leeway to make some sort of adjustment necessary to save maybe even the nation,” Chief Justice Chandrachud, heading a Constitution Bench, observed.
The Bench was hearing a series of petitions filed by indigenous groups from Assam which have challenged Section 6A of the Citizenship Act of 1955.
Under Section 6A, foreigners who had entered Assam before January 1, 1966 and “ordinarily resident” in the State, would have the rights and obligations of Indian citizens. Those who had entered the State between January 1, 1966 and March 25, 1971 would have the same rights and obligations except that they would not be able to vote for 10 years. For the government at the time, Section 6A was a way to check the influx of illegals into Assam.
‘Gave hope to illegals’
Petitioners, represented by senior advocate Shyam Divan, however claimed the provision in reality became a “beacon” for more foreign “infiltration” into Assam, leading to the destruction of the local cultural identity. It gave hope to illegals to stay on and gain the benefits of citizenship.
Mr. Divan said a justification that there was a violent political agitation, leading to a political settlement, was not sufficient basis to single out Assam for implementing an entirely new citizenship regime under Section 6A.
“Illegal immigration into Assam has been rewarded with the benefits of Indian citizenship,” he submitted.
The Chief Justice said it was easy now, decades later, to wonder about and criticise “compromises” like that concerning Assam.
“Obviously, every compromise made is never perfect. The State of Assam was riven with strife at the time. Does the government arrive at this compromise to bring peace to Assam or allow the strife-ridden State to continue in its path of violence merely because the compromise may ‘discriminate’ among States… These are vexed issues. Any solution found can be an inexact one. You cannot have a mathematical solution in these cases,” the CJI addressed Mr. Divan.
But the senior lawyer argued that Section 6A was discriminatory in itself. The provision cannot be justified by saying that its object was good, Mr. Divan said.
“Illegals were treated as citizens. Unequals were treated as equals,” he submitted.
