ASSAM SANMILITA MAHASANGHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2014-12-82
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on December 17,2014

Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

MAMONI RAJKUMARI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2017-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
MONOWARA BEWA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2017-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
REGISTRAR, NILAMBAR PITAMBAR UNIVERSITY VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2023-10-63] [REFERRED TO]
P. ARUNODAYAM VS. N. KASTURI [LAWS(MAD)-2017-7-171] [REFERRED TO]
CHEMECH LABORATORIES LTD, VS. APPELLANT ASSISTANT [LAWS(MAD)-2019-6-390] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR RAI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2022-2-128] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM PAL VS. STATE OF H P [LAWS(HPH)-2015-6-50] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAM KUMAR SAHA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-7-138] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDRA DAS VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(TRIP)-2015-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
NAVIN KUMAR RAY VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-10-40] [REFERRED TO]
THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME AND POLITICAL DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI VS. MAMEZA KHATUN AND ORS, D/O LATE HARAN KAZI, R/O SHAKHARI PARA, P.O. JAMADGHT, P.S. SOUTH SALMARA, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2015-10-81] [REFERRED TO]
AMINA KHATUN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2018-4-77] [REFERRED TO]
T. SANKARARAGHAVAN VS. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(MAD)-2019-7-117] [REFERRED TO]
S.G. DAVIS VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-2-324] [REFERRED TO]
KAUSHAL KISHORE SHUKLA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-241] [REFERRED TO]
CHANAM CHAOBA SINGH, S/O LATE CH PHEIJAO SINGH OF KHURAI THANGJAM LEIKAI VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2017-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER KAUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MANIP)-2023-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK MATHUR AND ORS. VS. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDHYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-11-74] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. C THOMAS PANIKKAR [LAWS(KER)-2017-11-196] [REFERRED TO]
PRESIDENT, INDO-GERMAN TOOL ROOM EMPLOYEES UNION VS. GENERAL MANAGER, INDO-GERMAN TOOL ROOM AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-6-106] [REFERRED TO]
RAJPATH CONTRACTORS & ENGINEERS LTD VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2021-1-52] [REFERRED TO]
C. THOMAS PANIKKAR VS. THE KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [LAWS(KER)-2017-11-326] [REFERRED TO]
JAMIRAN BIBI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [LAWS(GAU)-2018-4-143] [REFERRED TO]
RAHIMA KHATUN @ RAHIMA BIBI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2015-6-97] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

R.F.NARIMAN, J. - (1.)A Prophet is without honour in his own country. Substitute 'citizen' for 'prophet' and you will get the gist of the various writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India assailing Section 6A of the Citizenship Act.
(2.)IT all began when the Burmese ceded Assam to the British on 24 th February, 1826 as per the treaty of Yandabo, thus bringing to an end Ahom rule in Assam which had begun sometime in the 13th century. The British annexed Assam and placed it as an administrative unit of the Bengal Province. As early as 1931, C.S. Mullan, the Census Superintendent in his census report stated:
"Probably the most important event in the province during the last 25 years - an event, moreover, which seems likely to alter permanently the whole feature of Assam and to destroy the whole structure of Assamese culture and civilization has been the invasion of a vast horde of land -hungry immigrants mostly Muslims, from the districts of East Bengal. ... wheresoever the carcass, there the vultures will gathered together " (Politics of Migration by Dr. Manju Singh, Anita Publications, Jaipur, 1990, Page 59)

(3.)IN 1935, when the Government of India Act was promulgated, Assam was, under Section 46(1), stated to be a Governor's province. It was in this scenario that the Foreigners Act of 1946 was enacted under which the burden of proving whether a person is or is not a foreigner lies upon such person. At the commencement of the Constitution of India, Article 5 stated that every person who has his domicile in the territory of India and who was either born in the territory of India; or either of whose parents were born in the territory of India; or who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than 5 years immediately preceding such commencement shall be a citizen of India. As an exception, Article 6, which is important for the determination of some of the questions arising in these writ petitions, states as follows:
"Rights of citizenship of certain persons who have migrated to India from Pakistan. - -Notwithstanding anything in Article 5, a person who has migrated to the territory of India from the territory now included in Pakistan shall be deemed to be a citizen of India at the commencement of this Constitution if

(a) he or either of his parents or any of his grand -parents was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 (as originally enacted); and

(b)(i) in the case where such person has so migrated before the nineteenth day of July, 1948 , he has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India since the date of his migration, or

(ii) in the case where such person has so migrated on or after the nineteenth day of July, 1948 , he has been registered as a citizen of India by an officer appointed in that behalf by the Government of the Dominion of India on an application made by him therefor to such officer before the commencement of this Constitution in the form and manner prescribed by that Government: Provided that no person shall be so registered unless he has been resident in the territory of India or at least six months immediately preceding the date of his application."

H July, 1948, tHerefore, became tHe baseline for sucH persons as were referred to in Article 6 for being citizens of India.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.