The Opposition Congress on Thursday welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision affirming the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, calling it a “historic judgment” for the people of Assam.
A spokesperson of the party emphasized the significance of the ruling, which upholds the Assam Accord of 1985, recognizing March 25, 1971, as the cutoff date for detecting and deporting illegal migrants.
Advertisement
Ripun Bora, who recently returned to the Congress from Trinamool Congress, highlighted the Accord’s importance in bringing peace and development to the state after years of agitation.
He noted that the Accord, signed under the leadership of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, was widely accepted by Assam’s population, cutting across caste, creed, and religion.
“The Accord marked the end of the Assam agitation and was accepted by all political parties and communities in the state,” Bora said.
He credited the Accord with laying the foundation for Assam’s stability and growth by establishing a consensus on the citizenship issue.
However, Bora criticized the current BJP-led government, particularly Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, for allegedly creating confusion over the cutoff date for citizenship.
He pointed out that the Assam Accord had clearly set the cutoff date as March 25, 1971, but recent efforts have been made to shift it back to 1951, which has caused unrest among the people.
“Today’s ruling is a victory for truth and justice,” Bora said, expressing hope that the decision would bring clarity and stability to Assam. He urged all political parties to respect the court’s decision and focus on working together for the state’s development.
Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court, in a majority verdict, upheld the validity of Section 6A, a provision granting Indian citizenship to immigrants who arrived in Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971.
Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, leading the five-judge bench, emphasized that the Assam Accord represented a political solution to the problem of illegal migration, and Section 6A was a special provision to address the citizenship of those covered by the Accord.
The majority of the bench, including Justices Surya Kant, M M Sundresh, and Manoj Misra, concurred with the Chief Justice, stating that Parliament had the authority to enact such a provision. They upheld the 1971 cutoff date and dismissed claims of infringement of Article 29(1), which protects the rights of ethnic minorities.
Justice J B Pardiwala, in a dissenting opinion, declared Section 6A unconstitutional, but the bench ultimately rejected petitions challenging its validity, ensuring that the Assam Accord’s principles remain intact.
