Supreme Court: In a challenge to Section of the , by various indigenous groups in Assam on the ground that it legalizes the illegal infiltration of foreign migrants from Bangladesh, undermining the region’s demographic integrity and cultural identity, the 5-Judge Constitution Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. upheld the validity of Section 6A in a 4:1 majority, with Justice Pardiwala dissenting.
The majority noted that the decision to single out Assam was justified, given that the percentage of immigrants among the local population in Assam is higher than in other border states. While West Bengal has a larger number of migrants, the impact in Assam is more pronounced due to its smaller land area. Specifically, the presence of 40 lakh migrants in Assam affects the local demographic and socio-economic landscape more significantly than the 57 lakh migrants in West Bengal, highlighting the unique challenges faced by Assam in managing immigration.
The majority also affirmed that the cut-off date of 25-03-1971, was rational, marking the end of the Bangladesh Liberation War. This date was pivotal in shaping the context of the provision, as it reflects the historical circumstances surrounding the conflict. The majority concluded that Section 6A was “neither over-inclusive nor under-inclusive,” indicating that it effectively addresses the issue of immigration without unfairly categorizing individuals.
The Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to provide comprehensive data on the inflow of illegal migrants to Assam and the Northeastern states following 25-03-1971, the date marking Bangladesh’s independence. This directive includes detailed disclosures across various categories, such as the grant of citizenship to immigrants during different time periods and the operations of the Foreigners Tribunals that were established to address these issues.
The Majority Assam Accord represented a political solution to the issue of illegal migration, while Section of the served as the legislative remedy. The majority opinion affirmed that Parliament possessed the legislative competence to enact this provision. It emphasized that Section 6A was designed to strike a balance between humanitarian concerns and the necessity to protect the interests of the local population. This approach reflects an effort to address the complexities surrounding immigration while ensuring that the rights and identities of indigenous communities are preserved.
Source: Supreme Court Live hearing
The post appeared first on .