Staff Reporter
Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court on Friday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, as infructuous, as it has already been upheld by the Supreme Court in a recent judgement.
The division bench of Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair issued the order in the PIL petition (No. PIL/34/2010), with a linked case (PIL/77/2010), where the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, is under challenge. Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, addresses the citizenship of migrants who entered Assam from Bangladesh before March 25, 1971, granting citizenship to those who arrived before January 1, 1966, and providing a process for those who arrived between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971 – the cut-off date for granting citizenship.
The bench pointed out that, recently, a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6-A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, by a majority view.
The operative portion of the majority view states, “We hold that while the statutory scheme of Section 6A is constitutionally valid, there is inadequate enforcement of the same—leading to the possibility of widespread injustice. Further, the intention of Section 6A, i.e., to restrict illegal immigration post-1971, has also not been given proper effect. Accordingly, we deem it fit to issue the following directions: (a) In view of the conclusion drawn, it is held that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 falls within the bounds of the Constitution and is a valid piece of legislation; (b) As a necessary corollary thereto, (i) immigrants who entered the State of Assam prior to 1966 are deemed citizens; (ii) immigrants who entered between the cut off dates of January 1, 1966 and March 25, 1971 can seek citizenship subject to the eligibility conditions prescribed in Section 6A (3); and (iii) immigrants who entered the State of Assam on or after March 25, 1971 are not entitled to the protection conferred vide Section 6A and consequently, they are declared to be illegal immigrants. Accordingly, Section 6A has become redundant qua those immigrants who have entered the State of Assam on or after March 25, 1971.”
It was also stated that the provisions of the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950, shall also be read into Section 6A and shall be effectively employed for the purpose of identification of illegal immigrants. The statutory machinery and Tribunals tasked with the identification and detection of illegal immigrants or foreigners in Assam were termed inadequate and not proportionate to the requirement of giving time-bound effect to the legislative object of Section 6A read with the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950; the Foreigners Act, 1946; the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964; the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920; and the Passport Act, 1967.
The SC also observed that the implementation of immigration and citizenship legislation cannot be left to the mere wish and discretion of the authorities, necessitating constant monitoring by the apex court.
One of the judges concluded that the two yardsticks employed in Section 6A, that is, migration to Assam and the cut-off date of March 24, 1971, are reasonable. Though other states share a longer border with Bangladesh, the impact of migration in Assam in terms of numbers and resources is greater. Thus, the yardstick of migration to Assam is reasonable.
Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that Section 6A is unconstitutional because, instead of preventing migration to Assam, it incentivises migrants to come to Assam to secure citizenship through Section 6A, was considered erroneous. The court observed that the petitioners have been unable to prove that the ability of the Assamese people to take steps to protect their culture is violated by the provisions of Section 6A.
In view of the fact that the constitutional validity of Section 6-A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, has already been upheld by the Supreme Court, the court held that these PIL petitions have become infructuous. Hence, the PIL petitions were dismissed.
Also Read: Assam: Minister Ashok Singhal Under Fire as Oppn Levels Corruption Charges
Also Watch: