GUWAHATI: The All Assam Students Union (AASU) has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court to challenge the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules 2024. The student union claimed that the notification of these rules on March 11, 2024, contradicts both the Assam Accord and Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955.
According to AASU, the implementation of these rules could potentially legitimise illegal migrants, posing a threat to indigenous culture and violating various constitutional provisions. The organisation argues that the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024, are unconstitutional and infringe upon Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, and 29 of the Indian Constitution.
In the petition, AASU highlighted the detrimental impact of illegal immigration on the people of Assam, particularly from neighbouring Bangladesh. The organisation perceives the rules as a political maneuver that undermines the constitutional framework of Indian nationhood and citizenship in Assam.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Bar Association Chief Under Fire From Members For Letter To Murmu
"The Impugned Rules are a clear political move to fundamentally assault and redefine the constitutional basis of both Indian nationhood and the citizenship of Assam. The Residents of Assam have opposed the influx of non-Assamese people, especially those who have migrated to the state from neighbouring Bangladesh, and the Impugned Rules are legitimizing the same," stated the petition filed through Ankit Yadav, AoR, reported Live Law.
The petition also emphasised the local opposition to the influx of non-Assamese residents and asserts that the implementation of these rules would only exacerbate the issue.
AASU argued that the contested rules violate the commitments made to the people of Assam through both the Assam Accord and Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. These rules are alleged to extend citizenship to illegal migrants, directly contradicting the terms outlined in the Assam Accord.
Enacted in 1985, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act introduced Section 6A into the Citizenship Act of 1955 as part of the Assam Accord. This provision was aimed at addressing the issue of illegal migration in Assam. According to Section 6A, individuals who migrated to Assam from Bangladesh before March 24, 1971, were eligible for Indian citizenship. However, those who arrived after March 25, 1971, were designated for deportation to Bangladesh.
Click Here To Join Our WhatsApp Channel
Notably, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had reserved its judgment on December 12, 2023, in a series of petitions challenging Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955. The bench, comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, deliberated on the matter for four days before reserving the judgment.
In its plea, AASU requested the Supreme Court to issue a writ declaring the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024, as discriminatory, arbitrary, and illegal. Additionally, the petition seeks the annulment of the Adaptation of Laws (Amendment) Order, 2019, and called for concrete measures to safeguard the rights of indigenous people in Assam.
On March 11, the Centre notified the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules 2024, thus enforcing the controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 (CAA).
In response to this, various stakeholders have submitted applications and petitions to the Supreme Court.
The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) filed an application on March 12, seeking a stay on the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules 2024. Following this, The Democratic Youth Front of India (DYFI) also submitted a stay application.
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA), passed by the Parliament of India on December 11, 2019, stirred widespread debate and protests within the country. The legislation amended the Citizenship Act, 1955, introducing significant changes in the criteria for granting Indian citizenship. The primary focus of the CAA was to provide an expedited pathway to citizenship for persecuted religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who arrived in India by the end of 2014. However, the act faced criticism for its selective approach based on religion, specifically excluding Muslims.
