Justice Pardiwala's Dissent: Section 6A Declared Arbitrary

Justice J B Pardiwala of India's Supreme Court dissented against Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, calling it arbitrary and prone to misuse. The section, allowing citizenship to immigrants entering Assam from 1966-1971, lacks temporal limits and was deemed unconstitutional in Pardiwala's judgment.

In a landmark dissenting judgment, Supreme Court Justice J B Pardiwala held that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is arbitrary and constitutionally invalid. This section provides Indian citizenship to immigrants who entered Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971.

Justice Pardiwala argued that the open-ended nature of Section 6A is prone to abuse, with fraudulent documents helping immigrants falsely claim eligibility. This misuse has persisted over time, highlighting what Pardiwala calls the provision's "temporal arbitrariness."

Despite Pardiwala's dissent, the majority of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, upheld Section 6A's constitutional validity, viewing it as integral to the Assam Accord's political solution to illegal migration issues.

(With inputs from agencies.)