NEW DELHI: The central government must be given certain leeway to make “adjustments” in the larger interest of the nation when it is dealing with insurgency and violence, the Supreme Court observed on Wednesday in the course of its hearing on a clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act.

Such adjustments may appear as “concessions” at a later point in time but can be “compromises” that governments are required to undertake in the interest of peace in strife-ridden states and for the country’s “overall wellbeing”, a five-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud said.

The observation was made while hearing arguments by petitioners who reasoned that it was discriminatory to allow illegal immigrants to Assam to get citizenship without any rational basis or study assessing its impact on the constitutional rights of the indigenous population of the state.

Section 6A is a special provision inserted into the 1955 Citizenship Act on December 7, 1985, based on the Assam Accord — a tripartite agreement between the then Rajiv Gandhi-led central government, the Assam government and All Assam Students Union (AASU).

It came at the end of a six-year-long agitation by AASU to identify and deport illegal immigrants, mostly from neighbouring Bangladesh. The special provision allowed people who entered Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, and who were residing in the state, to register themselves as Indian citizens. Upon registration, such people would have the same rights and obligations as a citizen of India but would not be entitled to be included in any electoral roll for 10 years. Those who came before January 1, 1966, were granted deemed citizenship.

Last month, solicitor general Tushar Mehta in written submissions reasoned that the provision was contemplated as a “compromise” based on a mix of political, extra-territorial and national security issues and that it was designed to protect the lives of the residents of Assam and the foreigners.

On Wednesday, the bench comprising justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed: “Today we have states, even in the north-east, affected by insurgency and violence. We need to give a certain leeway to the Government in those situations to make adjustments to save the nation”.

On the petitioners claiming discrimination against Assam, the bench said, “These are vexed issues. Can Parliament not say that we are doing this to bring about peace in a strife-ridden state or should we allow that strife to continue merely because we will be discriminating between states.”

“It may appear, maybe after 25 years when the nation is stable, why did the government make the concession. But at that moment, these are compromises that governments have to make…,” the bench said. The court referred to the violent protests in Assam which led to the signing of the Assam Accord

“At that point where there was so much violence in Assam, we need to put ourselves in the position of the government at Centre in 1985, the then Parliament,” the bench observed, adding, “Any solution they would have found is bound to be inexact as there cannot be a mathematical solution in these cases.”

Senior advocates Shyam Divan, Kamal Narayan Chaudhary and Vijay Hansaria appearing for the petitioners concluded their arguments. They faulted Section 6A on other fronts, saying it effectively led to dual citizenship for the illegal immigrants since there was no record to show they renounced their previous citizenship while becoming an Indian citizen. Article 9 of the Indian Constitution bars dual citizenship.

Chaudhary said that Section 6A was brought in by the Rajvi Gandhi government which enjoyed “brute force” with over 400 MPs and said it was a “joke” and a product of the “vote bank politics” that sought to favour illegal migrants over indigenous citizens of Assam.

Hansaria said that as on March 25, 1971, the sovereign nation of Bangladesh was not born and citizens of that country owed allegiance to the Constitution of Pakistan. Hansaria said these persons, who were citizens of Pakistan, were governed by Article 6 of the Indian Constitution which only grants citizenship to migrants from Pakistani who entered India before July 19, 1948. Thus, a second cut-off date prescribed by a law could not violate the Constitution, he argued.

The court said, “Can you attribute to Parliament that when they enacted Section 6A, they wanted to confer citizenship to citizens of Pakistan? If these people have left their motherland, the last thing they would like to do is to owe their allegiance to their Constitution.”

On the July 1948 cutoff, the bench said, “In 1948, a large number of persons fled to India. It extended protection to those persons. But here the Parliament was looking into the human suffering.”

The petitioners said human suffering has always led to people leaving their country and seeking refuge in another country on account of persecution or injustice. India has given asylum to Chakma refugees, Rohingyas, Sri Lankan Tamils and Tibetans who have never been given citizenship benefits, they added.

The court responded, “Parliament is not bound to give citizenship to every hue and dimension of persons. It is not bound to pick out everyone.”

The court has posted the case for further hearing on Thursday when the Centre is expected to start presenting its stand.