Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Defending the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, the Centre has told the Supreme Court that the provision “is a part of the legislative policy of Parliament, arising from a political settlement with relevant parties, based on certain relevant considerations of State policy and foreign policy” and as such is not arbitrary and has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
In written submissions before a five-judge Constitution bench of the court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that “inasmuch as the object sought to be achieved by the legislation was to establish public order in the State and bring to an end a state of agitation in that State relating to a demand that there should be clear demarcation as to who are legitimate citizens and who are illegal migrants, there can be no doubt that there is rational relationship between the differentia and the objects sought to be achieved by the legislation in question”.
The government submitted that “the grant of citizenship to persons or a class of persons coming from a particular country is not just a national issue but essentially, inter alia, an outcome of political decisions of the State in respect of maintaining its foreign relations with the State in question and/or with any other foreign States. Such a decision is often a product of complex interplay of diverse factors such as social, economic, cultural and often extra-legal or extra judicial considerations. As a matter of legislative policy and from the purview of the Parliament, the said decisions do not involve any interplay of individual rights on either side of the divide”.
It added that “in that view, Section 6A is a part of the legislative policy of the Parliament, arising from a political settlement with relevant parties, based on certain relevant considerations of State policy and foreign policy. It may be submitted that the issue of extending any privilege to any non-citizens is deeply embedded in the concept of sovereignty itself”.
The very fact that the accord was the result of a consultative process and was entered into after extensive negotiations with representative groups of the people of Assam is sufficient in itself to negate the charge of arbitrariness. Applying the test of Article 14 to the facts of the present case it is apparent that the object of the legislation being to give effect to a political accord which is relevant specifically to the state of Assam, it cannot be said that the object itself is discriminatory or unlawful”.
The submissions come in response to petitions which have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 6A with the petitioners contending among others that it is arbitrary as it singles out Assam, violates Article 14 and has led to an influx of illegal migrants into the state from Bangladesh. The SG will commence his arguments in the matter before the court on Thursday. The bench presided by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud comprises Justices Surya Kant, M M Sundresh, J B Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra.
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
