GUWAHATI: During the third day of the hearing of the constitutional validity of the Citizenship Act, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, emphasising that the court's focus should remain on this specific provision.
The section, which pertains to citizenship in Assam, has come under scrutiny for its limited scope and its exclusion of other border states, particularly West Bengal, which shares a larger border with Bangladesh.
Mehta argued that the provision, targeting a specific time frame (pre-1971) and location (Assam), was enacted due to the unique cultural dynamics between Bengali-speaking migrants and the Assamese people. He pointed out that the provision's conditions, including entry through Bangladesh and ancestry links to undivided India, were crafted to address the specific concerns of Assam.
However, Justice MM Sundresh raised concerns about the gap between state actions and tribunal proceedings, indicating a challenge in addressing the issue of illegal immigration effectively.
The court pressed Mehta on why Assam was singled out, considering West Bengal's extensive border with Bangladesh.
Mehta suggested that Assam's distinct cultural differences and historical issues led to its unique situation, and the need for targeted legislation arose from these circumstances.
Attorney General R Venkatramani supported Mehta's stance, asserting that the state-specific resolution was valid for its time and did not render the provision defective. He explained that the use of the term "deemed" in Section 6A was to designate individuals falling under specific articles as citizens of India.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, challenged the petitioners' contentions, emphasizing the deep historical context of population migration to India. Sibal argued that demographic changes could not be attributed to a single event and questioned the validity of claims regarding the impact on Assamese culture.
The court delved into Article 14, with Sibal suggesting that striking down Section 6A might lead to societal divisions, contrary to the constitutional principle of fraternity. The discussion also touched on the preservation of rights under Article 29 and the burden of demonstrating specific violations related to language, script, or other cultural aspects.
Indira Jaising, Senior Advocate for the All Assam Minority Students Union, characterised Section 6A as a sui generis provision, asserting that it did not freeze citizenship and left room for migration. Jaising challenged the term "demographic invasion" and emphasised the protection of language scripts and customs.
The Chief Justice of India acknowledged the complex nature of culture, involving various elements, and stressed the importance of recognising and preserving constitutional culture.
