In a majority verdict, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 6A of Citizenship Act, which recognized the Assam Accord. Pronouncing the verdict, Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed the section cannot be held unconstitutional just because it does not prescribe a registration procedure for citizenship.
A five-member constitutional bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices Surya Kant, M.M. Sundresh, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra recognized the Assam Accord by 4:1 majority verdict. Three judgments were read by the bench and Justice Pardiwala gave a dissenting judgment.
Reading the judgment, Chief Justice Chandrachud said the objective of the provision must be understood in the backdrop of the Bangladesh war and it cannot be held unconstitutional just because it doesn’t mandate a registration procedure, Live Law reported. Chief Justice Chandrachud observed considering Assam’s land size, the magnitude of the influx of migrants in Assam was higher compared to other border states. “Assam Accord was a political solution to the problem of illegal migration and Section 6A was the legislative solution,” CJI said.
Also read
- Bulldozer justice illegal, abuse of power. What the Supreme Court said | 10 points
- 'Bulldozer justice simply unacceptable under rule of law': CJI D.Y. Chandrachud's final judgement
- RG Kar case: Supreme Court instructs CBI to continue investigation; junior doctors disappointed again
- SC uses extraordinary powers, orders liquidation of Jet Airways’ assets
- Justice Chandrachud's record as CJI appears to be a mixed bag
In his dissenting judgment, Justice Pardiwala observed the Assam Accord was result of years of consultation between the Centre, State and stakeholders. Though legislation might have been valid at the time of enactment, by afflux of time, it has become temporarily flawed, Justice Pardiwala observed.
A civil society group in Assam, the Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha, moved a plea in the Supreme Court in 2012, contesting the validity of Section 6A and argued it was discriminatory and unlawful in nature. The petitioners also argued that the provision legalised illegal infiltration into Assam.
