GUWAHATI: The Supreme Court began hearing petitions on Tuesday challenging Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, a provision implementing the Assam Accord.
Section 6A allows migrants in Assam (1966-1971) to seek Indian citizenship, contested by indigenous groups who argue it legalises illegal infiltration from Bangladesh.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud highlighted the humanitarian aspect, citing India's role in the Bangladesh Liberation and the Parliament's view that immigration was not purely illegal but rooted in history.
- Senior Advocate Shyam Divan raised concerns about cultural, land, and economic rights, labelling the situation as a "demographic invasion."
- CJI questioned the accuracy of statistics on demographic changes, emphasising the need for reliable data to assess the impact of Section 6A.
- Divan argued Section 6A violates constitutional principles, fundamental rights, political rights, and legislative competence, and undermines democracy and federalism.
- Petitioners seek Section 6A's declaration as unconstitutional, challenge specific rules, and call for a policy on immigrants' settlement, border fencing, and removal of encroachers.
- CJI questioned the need for the challenge and suggested the burden of proof rests on the challenging party to show the law's impact on Assam's demographic and cultural identity.
- CJI emphasised the issue might be more about enforcing existing laws post-1971 than challenging the constitutionality of Section 6A.
- The bench examined demographic data, noting fluctuations and suggesting a critical change in demographics from 1991 to 2001.
- Divan expressed concerns about the long-term effects of conferring citizenship based on historical facts, citing the multiplier effect on subsequent generations.
- Divan highlighted disparities between individuals entering Assam and other border states, emphasising adverse impacts on Assam's citizens due to the special provision.
The Supreme Court hearing on Section 6A revolves around its constitutional validity, impact on Assam's demographics, and the broader humanitarian context of immigration after the Bangladesh Liberation.
The dispute raises questions about the need for a special provision, its historical justification, and the potential consequences on indigenous rights and identity.
