Under Section 6A , those Bangladeshi migrants who entered Assam before Jan 1, 1966, would be deemed Indian citizens, whereas those who came to the state between Jan 1966 and March 24, 1971, were to be given citizenship after 10 years subject to certain conditions.
While the majority opinion running into 185 pages, authored by Justice Surya Kant for himself and Justices M M Sundresh and Manoj Misra, went beyond the validity of Section 6A and delved into the cultural and demographic crisis faced by inhabitants of Assam because of illegal influx of Bangladeshi migrants and prescribed remedial steps, CJI D Y Chandrachud stopped at upholding the validity of Section 6A. Justice J B Pardiwala dissented and quashed Section 6A prospectively.
Illegal entry of Bangladeshis, which has been going on since the country's partition in 1947, has been a wedge issue with BJP and AGP campaigning against it as a threat to the country's integrity and security and a "plot" to change the demography in border areas, and their opponents accusing them of exaggerating the problem due to the Muslim faith of the illegal immigrants.
The issue, which played a major role in BJP's rise as the dominant force in Assam at the expense of Congress and, interestingly, AGP, has already become a key theme in the approaching Jharkhand polls.
Justice Kant dealt with the situation arising from unchecked infiltration of Bangladeshi migrants threatening to swamp Assam, and referred to a two decade-old judgment in Sarbananda Sonowal case in which the SC had observed that "there can be no manner of doubt that the state of Assam is facing 'external aggression and internal disturbance' on account of largescale illegal migration of Bangladeshi nationals".
"Immigrants who entered 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 Assam on or after March 25, 1971," Justices Kant, Sundresh and Misra said.
The majority held that the directions issued for identification, detection and deportation of illegal Bangladeshi migrants who entered Assam after Mar 25, 1971, must be implemented expeditiously. Importantly, it said five laws - Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950; Foreigners Act, 1946; Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964; Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920; and Passport Act, 1967 - must act in tandem to give effect to the legislative objective of Section 6A, that is not to permit any illegal Bangladeshi migrant to enter Assam after March 25, 1971.
Finding that the SC's directives in the Sonowal judgment had not been implemented properly even after 20 years as only 97,714 cases were pending before Foreigners Tribunals even though millions of illegal Bangladeshi migrants have entered the state, the SC decided to monitor progress of detection and deportation of such migrants from now.
"Implementation of immigration and citizenship legislations cannot be left to the mere wish and discretion of the authorities, necessitating constant monitoring by this court," Kant said.
In his 94-page opinion, CJI Chandrachud said, "The legislative objective of Section 6A was to balance the humanitarian needs of migrants of Indian origin and the impact of the migration on the economic and cultural needs of Indian states. The two yardsticks employed in Section 6A, that is migration to Assam and the cut-off date of March 24, 1971, are reasonable."
While the majority opinion running into 185 pages, authored by Justice Surya Kant for himself and Justices M M Sundresh and Manoj Misra, went beyond the validity of Section 6A and delved into the cultural and demographic crisis faced by inhabitants of Assam because of illegal influx of Bangladeshi migrants and prescribed remedial steps, CJI D Y Chandrachud stopped at upholding the validity of Section 6A. Justice J B Pardiwala dissented and quashed Section 6A prospectively.
Illegal entry of Bangladeshis, which has been going on since the country's partition in 1947, has been a wedge issue with BJP and AGP campaigning against it as a threat to the country's integrity and security and a "plot" to change the demography in border areas, and their opponents accusing them of exaggerating the problem due to the Muslim faith of the illegal immigrants.
The issue, which played a major role in BJP's rise as the dominant force in Assam at the expense of Congress and, interestingly, AGP, has already become a key theme in the approaching Jharkhand polls.
Justice Kant dealt with the situation arising from unchecked infiltration of Bangladeshi migrants threatening to swamp Assam, and referred to a two decade-old judgment in Sarbananda Sonowal case in which the SC had observed that "there can be no manner of doubt that the state of Assam is facing 'external aggression and internal disturbance' on account of largescale illegal migration of Bangladeshi nationals".
"Immigrants who entered 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 Assam on or after March 25, 1971," Justices Kant, Sundresh and Misra said.
The majority held that the directions issued for identification, detection and deportation of illegal Bangladeshi migrants who entered Assam after Mar 25, 1971, must be implemented expeditiously. Importantly, it said five laws - Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950; Foreigners Act, 1946; Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964; Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920; and Passport Act, 1967 - must act in tandem to give effect to the legislative objective of Section 6A, that is not to permit any illegal Bangladeshi migrant to enter Assam after March 25, 1971.
Finding that the SC's directives in the Sonowal judgment had not been implemented properly even after 20 years as only 97,714 cases were pending before Foreigners Tribunals even though millions of illegal Bangladeshi migrants have entered the state, the SC decided to monitor progress of detection and deportation of such migrants from now.
"Implementation of immigration and citizenship legislations cannot be left to the mere wish and discretion of the authorities, necessitating constant monitoring by this court," Kant said.
In his 94-page opinion, CJI Chandrachud said, "The legislative objective of Section 6A was to balance the humanitarian needs of migrants of Indian origin and the impact of the migration on the economic and cultural needs of Indian states. The two yardsticks employed in Section 6A, that is migration to Assam and the cut-off date of March 24, 1971, are reasonable."
You may also like
Naby Keita shows true colors as message to Liverpool fans underlines where loyalties lie
Watch: Hamas chief & 'mass murderer' Yahya Sinwar's last moments before being killed by Israel
'India's growth rate is among the shiniest parts in the world economy': Ajay Banga
Assam: Restoration work underway after 8 coaches of Agartala-LTT Express derails
Police investigating Liam Payne's death could pursue two criminal charges
