New Delhi, In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court, presided over by a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, interrogated the government’s decision to exclude West Bengal from the citizenship grant under section 6A of the Citizenship Act. The bench, including Justices Surya Kant, M M Sundresh, J B Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, questioned the rationale behind singling out Assam when West Bengal, with a more extensive border with Bangladesh, was left out.
The court pressed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, for an explanation on the exclusion of West Bengal and sought insights into the current situation in the state. Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized that the argument of agitation in Assam couldn’t justify the differential treatment of West Bengal.
As the proceedings commenced, Mehta clarified that the constitutional scrutiny of Section 6A is specific and does not extend to other amendments in the Citizenship Act. He emphasized the limited application of Section 6A to a particular time frame and a defined category within Assam.
The Chief Justice raised questions about the fate of those who didn’t benefit from the citizenship grant under Section 6A and are considered illegal immigrants. He highlighted the smaller circle within the larger group of people who came to India between 1966-1971 but never obtained citizenship, seeking clarification on the government’s stance regarding this group.
The ongoing hearing is part of an examination of the constitutional validity of Section 6A, introduced as a special provision to address citizenship issues arising from the Assam Accord. The provision establishes March 25, 1971, as the cutoff date for granting citizenship to Bangladeshi migrants in Assam, mandating registration for those arriving between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971.
