While the CJI, Justices Kant, Sundresh, and Misra upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A, Justice J B Pardiwala dissented in a minority verdict. CJI Chandrachud noted that Section 6A aims to manage migration effectively while addressing humanitarian concerns for migrants of Indian origin
Kapil Sibal. File Photo
Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal praised the Supreme Court's recent ruling affirming the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, saying it is a message to all that "live and let live", highlighting the importance of preserving India's multicultural and pluralistic society, reported news agency PTI.
ADVERTISEMENT
In a landmark judgement delivered on Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld Section 6A, which grants Indian citizenship to immigrants from Bangladesh who entered Assam before March 25, 1971.
The ruling was made by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, alongside Justices Surya Kant, M M Sundresh, and Manoj Misra. They also stressed the need for more effective policy measures to address illegal immigration.
Citizenship Act, 1955
— Kapil Sibal (@KapilSibal) October 18, 2024
Section 6-A
Upheld by Supreme Court
Message to all :
“Live and let live”
Conserve the culture of a “multicultural and plural nation that India is”
Bhakts listening?
Bajrang Dal listening?
Governments listening?
Hope so !
Sibal took to social media platform X (formerly Twitter) to express his views, stating, "Citizenship Act, 1955, Section 6-A, upheld by Supreme Court. Message to all: 'Live and let live'. Conserve the culture of a 'multicultural and plural nation that India is'. Bhakts listening? Bajrang Dal listening? Governments listening? Hope so!"
Section 6A was added to the Citizenship Act in 1985 following the Assam Accord, an agreement between the then Rajiv Gandhi government and local groups led by Prafulla Mahanta, including the All Assam Students Union.
This provision establishes March 25, 1971, as the cut-off date for granting citizenship to migrants from Bangladesh who have been residing in Assam since then.
The Supreme Court's ruling is expected to strengthen the position of those opposing citizenship for immigrants who arrived in Assam after the cut-off date.
According to Section 6A, individuals who migrated to Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, are eligible for Indian citizenship if they have been residents since then.
While the CJI, Justices Kant, Sundresh, and Misra upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A, Justice J B Pardiwala dissented in a minority verdict, stated PTI.
CJI Chandrachud noted that Section 6A aims to manage migration effectively while addressing humanitarian concerns for migrants of Indian origin.
He affirmed that this section does not violate Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution, which outline provisions for conferring citizenship on migrants from East and West Pakistan.
"The Assam Accord was a political solution to the issue of growing migration and Section 6A was a legislative solution. Section 6A must not be read detached from the previous legislation enacted by Parliament to deal with the problem of influx of migrants of Indian origin... Section 6A is one more statutory intervention in the long list of legislation that balances the humanitarian needs of migrants of Indian origin and the impact of such migration on economic and cultural needs of Indian states," he wrote.
As per PTI, Justice Surya Kant, writing for himself and Justices Sundresh and Misra, said, that Section 6A falls within the bounds of the Constitution and does not contravene the foundational principles of fraternity.
(With inputs from PTI)
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
