18th October 2024 (9 Topics)
1
Oct
2
Oct
3
Oct
4
Oct
5
Oct
7
Oct
8
Oct
9
Oct
10
Oct
11
Oct
12
Oct
14
Oct
15
Oct
16
Oct
17
Oct
18
Oct
19
Oct
21
Oct
22
Oct
23
Oct
24
Oct
25
Oct
26
Oct
28
Oct
29
Oct
30
Oct
31
Oct
On citizenship debate, SC judgment strikes an inclusive note
You must be logged in to get greater insights. click here to login
Context
The Supreme Court recently delivered a landmark judgment on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, through a five-judge Constitution Bench. This ruling is significant as it offers a detailed examination of citizenship rights under the Constitution and the implications for various constitutional articles, particularly in the context of Assam's history of migration.
Examination of Citizenship
- First Comprehensive Analysis: This judgment marks the Supreme Court's first extensive examination of the meaning of citizenship under the Indian Constitution. The Court explored the definition of citizenship and its implications for national identity, focusing on fraternity and inclusivity rather than exclusivity.
- Link to Right to Culture: The Court also addressed the right to culture under Article 29 for the first time, emphasizing that the existence of Section 6A does not infringe upon the cultural rights of indigenous Assamese people. Instead, it suggested that grievances stem from the lack of action against illegal migrants who entered post the cut-off date.
- Intersection with Voting Rights: For the first time, the Court analyzed the relationship between the right to vote and citizenship, rejecting claims that Section 6A dilutes the electoral rights of original inhabitants. The ruling clarified that Article 326 does not allow groups to exclude others from voting rights, reinforcing a more inclusive electoral framework.
Judicial Opinions and Dissent
- Majority Opinion Insights: The majority opinion accepted a broad interpretation of citizenship and rejected the notion of cultural exclusivity. The judgment affirmed that the right to conserve culture coexists with the recognition of multiple cultures within Assam.
- Dissenting View on Temporal Unreasonableness: Justice Pardiwala's dissent introduced the concept of temporal unreasonableness, arguing that Section 6A has become outdated and unreasonable over time due to its failure to address illegal migration effectively. This perspective suggests a potential re-evaluation of statutory provisions as societal contexts change.
- Future Implications: The ruling opens avenues for further debates on citizenship in India, including the constitutionality of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. The differing opinions underscore the complexities surrounding citizenship and migration issues, indicating that this area of law will continue to evolve.
Practice Question
Q. Discuss the implications of the Supreme Court's judgment on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act for understanding citizenship rights in India, particularly in relation to cultural preservation and electoral rights.
Courses
Study
Notes
Home
Resources
More
