0

“The issues of patient care service are dependent upon the competence of the concerned doctor or the ECG technician” : State of West Bengal

Title: B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre -Vs.- State of West Bengal & Ors.

Citation: MAT 1595 of 2019

Decided on: 15.12.2023

Coram: Justice Arijit Banerjee & Justice Apurba Sinha Ray

 

 

Introduction

This case highlights the potential consequences of inadequate patient care, even if medical negligence isn’t proven. It also demonstrates the importance of thorough investigations and fair compensation for families impacted by hospital shortcomings.

 

Facts of the case

A writ petition was filed under article 226 of the constitution of India before a single judge of  Calcutta High court by BM Birla Heart Research Centre (BMBHRC) challenging the judgement and order of West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission. The case involved a bereaved son accusing BMBHRC of negligence as the reason for his mother’s death. He cited delays in shifting her, improper medication, diagnosis, and communication.

The Commission investigated, finding no medical negligence but significant deficiencies in patient care. They awarded the family 20 lakh rupees (approximately $26,000) in compensation.

The court, after hearing the parties and taking into consideration the materials on record, dismissed the said writ application holding that the conclusion arrived at by the Commission was correct and justified.

Aggrieved by this judgement and order, BMBHRC challenged the decision, arguing the judge overlooked their arguments and evidence and that he had flawed analysis and findings.

 

Court’s observation and analysis

The Court set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the order of the Hon’ble Commission. The instant appeal, was thus, allowed but without any order as to costs. In this case the issues of patient care service was dependent upon the competence of the concerned doctor or the ECG technician. The court made reference to the case – State of Punjab Vs. Shiv Ram & Ors.( AIR 2005 SC 3280 ), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe in paragraph 28 that unless primary liability is established, vicarious liability on the state cannot be imposed. The Commission lacked authority to judge doctor misconduct because a specialized body handles such cases under specific regulations. The court wasn’t informed of this. The court made the wrong judgment about the expected level of doctor’s competence due to incomplete guidance. According to the commission had the ECG of the patient been done and interpreted by the BMBHRC’ through a competent doctor and technician, such untimely death of Arati Pal might have been averted. The questions whether or not the doctors or the clinical establishment were at fault in diagnosis, are issues of medical negligence which the Commission could not have BEEN adjudicated and the Commission had rightly refused to enter into that arena. Furthermore, there is no material on record showing that there was any nexus between the ECG report done and the death of the patient Arati Pal. The allegation against the incompetent doctor is such that he has committed professional misconduct under Regulation 7.20 of Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 and for which a specific provision has been made for determining whether he has committed any professional misconduct or not. The Commission has therefore no authority to observe that the doctor  was not qualified to conduct as well as interpret the ECG report.

Furthermore, unless the Medical Council of the West Bengal declares through specific and appropriate disciplinary action that Dr. Giri is an unqualified doctor, the Commissioner has no authority to declare Dr. Giri as unqualified to perform ECG or to interpret the findings thereof.

 

 

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

click to view judgements

0

The Madras High Court has upheld the State Government’s right to choose Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors.

Blog, blog

Case Title: R Suresh Kumar v The Principal Secretary to Government

Case No: W.P.(MD)No.29723 of 2023

Decided on: 19th December, 2023

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDAR and THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL

 Facts of the Case

In district courts under the jurisdiction of Madurai, advocate Suresh Kumar contested the appointment of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors. Kumar questioned the validity of the appointments, claiming that the government was not following the procedure for selecting cadre public prosecutors and additional public prosecutors. In response, the State Public Prosecutor argued that State Governments are not required to appoint Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors solely from the cadre under the Code of Criminal Procedure, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in K.J. John v. State of Kerala.

Furthermore, the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors/Exclusive Public Prosecutors is made possible by provisions found in acts like the POCSO Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecutor focused on Section 24(8) of the CrPC, which emphasises the Central and State Governments’ authority to designate Public Prosecutors for particular cases who have ten years of experience at the bar and the clause that allows victims to designate an advocate to support the prosecution.

Legal Provisions

The case concerns the interpretation of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) Section 24(8) and the Supreme Court’s ruling in K.J. John v. State of Kerala, which held that State Governments were not required to appoint prosecutors solely from the cadre, citing statutes such as the POCSO Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act that provided for Special Public Prosecutors.

Issues

Is the State Government’s authority to appoint Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors under Section 24(6A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), beyond the regular cadre, legally valid and in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the CrPC?

Courts analysis and decision

Under Section 24(6A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the has upheld the State Government’s right to choose Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors. The court stated, “We conclude by writing that the powers of the State Government to appoint Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors under sub-section (6-A) of Section 24 of Cr.P.C. is de hors the regular cadre and it can be resorted to,” emphasising that this power extends beyond the regular cadre and allows the appointment of special Public Prosecutors for specific cases.

The court emphasized the sub-section 6A of the Tamil Nadu modification to Section 24 of the CrPC, which gave the State Government specific authority to appoint Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors outside of the normal cadre. The court maintained the State’s jurisdiction while emphasising the need to carefully follow Section 24 of the CrPC’s sub-sections (4) and (5). As a result, the court declared that the plea was without merit and that the petition was therefore unjustified.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Rupika Goundla

Click here to view judgement

0

The Madras High Court directed the State government to review hit-and-run accident compensation, citing disparities with the Motor Vehicles Act.

Blog, blog

Case Title: A Vasanthi v S Jayakumar

Case No: C.M.A.No.1960 of 2017

Decided on: 15th December, 2023

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR

Facts of the Case

The claimants of the appeal are requesting damages for K. Arulappan’s premature death in a car accident that happened on February 26, 2009, at approximately 11:30 a.m. A truck that was heading in the other direction collided with Arulappan while he was strolling close to the Madhavaram Milk Dairy’s back gate. The plaintiffs requested Rs. 27,00,000 in compensation, claiming that the lorry was being driven carelessly and dangerously. The deceased’s monthly salary of Rs. 18,000/-was demanded in addition to compensation for loss of consortium, funeral costs, and other damages, arguing that the accident was caused by the driver’s negligence.

Even though the claimants insisted that the lorry was involved in the accident, the tribunal denied their claim because they were unable to provide sufficient evidence. The magistrate judged the closed FIR to be time-barred, and the tribunal stated doubts about the quality of the evidence that was offered. Notably, because the charge sheet had not been punctually submitted with the criminal court but had somehow surfaced during the tribunal hearings, the tribunal expressed worries regarding the circumstances surrounding it, thinking that it may have been manipulated or tampered with. The compensation plea was dismissed as a result of the tribunal’s finding that there was not enough evidence to back up the claim.

Legal Provisions

Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) imposes a statutory obligation on the Police Officer to forward the final report to the concerned Magistrate.  Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) prescribes a limitation period for the filing of final reports. The court expressed concern over instances where final reports were not filed within the stipulated time, leading to potential acquittals. The court drew a comparison between the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act for road accident victims, where the offending vehicle is identified, and the compensation for hit-and-run cases.

Issues

How did the final report or charge sheet, which was supposed to be filed before the Criminal Court under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, end up being presented before the Tribunal after the criminal case was closed as barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973?

Courts analysis and decision

Due to a notable discrepancy in the amount of compensation paid to victims of hit-and-run accidents compared to those covered by the Motor Vehicles Act, the  High Court has directed the State government to re-evaluate the compensation plan. The court voiced concern that the low compensation that exists now would encourage people to stage events by planting cars in order to get bigger compensation amounts. The necessity for a comprehensive review to stop these kinds of activities was underlined by the court, who proposed that changing the compensation structure will deter car planting and provide just recompense for victims of hit-and-run accidents.

The High Court also pointed to cases in which inadequate inquiries following traffic accidents resulted in police cooperation with accident victims. In order to prevent the early closure of First Information Reports (FIRs) in accordance with Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court suggested that the Director General of Police take appropriate action. The court emphasised that police officers are required by law to swiftly transmit their final reports to the relevant magistrate in accordance with Section 173(2) of the CrPC. The court maintained that if this duty is not met, the police officer will be found not guilty, making these final reports useless. The court issued orders to guarantee the timely filing of final reports in light of these remarks, stressing the significance of adhering to procedural.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Rupika Goundla

Click here to view judgement

 

0

Deepfakes and AI : How the government plans to execute a regulatory framework as per the IT rules and IT Act,2000

Blog , , , ,

Introduction

Deepfakes are manipulated versions of pictures of video where techniques like morphing is used to falsely pretend as someone else. It is a tool of misrepresentation which has an abundance of consequences behind it. Recently, many popular personalities have become victim of the deep fake use.

Currently, there are no concentrated regulations to stop these types of innovations. One of the primary legislations for preventing and prohibiting deepfakes currently in India is the IT Act, 2000. It is under the scope of violation of privacy to circulate or publish of a person’s images in mass media[1].

However, the IT act is not sufficient to tackle the specific need for a Deepfake or AI regulation in the country.

Existing Regulation :

The IT Act, 2000[2] and IT Rules[3] specify provisions for the violation of privacy against an individual and also the appropriate punishments.

Punishments :

Section 66A provides that any person who sends offensive or false or misleading information through message is punishable with 3 years along with fine.

Section 66C of the Act provides that if any person does an act which impersonates another person through signature or unique identification feature, shall be punished for 3 years.

Section 66E provides for the violation of privacy against any person. It includes publishing or captures obscene images without consent, shall be punished for three years alongside a fine of upto Rs.2,00,000.

The punishment fir publishing any form of obscene material shall be punished under Section 67 and Section 67A provides punishment for publishing any sexually explicit act. Section 67B punishes any person for transmitting or publishing any obscene media of children.

IT rules :

Rule 3(1)(b) gives directions to intermediaries. Intermediaries are the controllers of data and stores data for their internet application or websites.

Intermediaries are defined under Section 2(w) as:

“―intermediary, with respect to any particular electronic records, means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web-hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online-market places and cyber cafes”

Rule 3(1)(b) states that :

No intermediary shall host, display, modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share any information that :

  • Belongs to another person
  • The content is obscene, invasive of bodily privacy of another person, encourages money laundering etc.
  • Such content is harmful to a child
  • It infringes any intellectual property
  • It misleads the viewer about the origin of the message or communicates any misinformation through its interface.
  • Impersonates another person
  • Is a public threat to the security and sovereignty of India.

However, the IT Act provides that the intermediaries will not be liable under Section 79(1) of the Act :

Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force but subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), an intermediary shall not be liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by him.”

MeitY Advisory notification :

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology issued an advisory notification governing the intermediaries to follow the IT rules in prevention of circulating deepfakes.

The advisory notification mentions that the users needs to be specifically mentioned about the type of content which is prohibited under the IT rules. The communication should be in precise language and must be easily interpreted. The ministry also advised to set up regular reminders to the users on the prohibited content, for example during every login or while registering as a new account in the interface[4].

The users must be informed about the penal provisions attracted to the violation of Rule 3(1)(b) of the IT rules. The penal laws attracting Rule 3(1)(b) are the IPC and the IT Act. It specifies that in the terms and conditions of the application, the intermediaries must clearly highlight that intermediaries/platforms are under obligation to report legal violations to the law enforcement agencies under the relevant Indian laws applicable to the context[5].

 The advisory also emphasised on the Rule 3(1)(b)(v) which states that :

Any content which :

“deceives or misleads the addressee about the origin of the message or knowingly and intentionally communicates any misinformation or information which is patently false and untrue or misleading in nature” shall be removed by the intermediary as a part of their duty.

Furthermore, it added that It is the responsibility of platforms to make reasonable measures to stop users from hosting, displaying, uploading, altering, publishing, sending, storing, updating, or distributing any content that is forbidden on digital intermediaries or information connected to any of the 11 mentioned user harms[6].

Does AI and deepfake need separate legislation :

The IT Act and IT rules no doubt provide an extensive scope for covering AI and deepfake violations. However, the regulations are ex-post regulations. It means that the scope for preventing these issues beforehand is not covered by the Act. The Act and the Rules only provide for the remedy after the damage has been done.

Innovations and new technological advancements is not the drawback of AI and deepfakes, it is the misuse of such which is causing a huge gap between privacy and technological advancement. The mechanism of “cure after damage” should be changed.

It is advised that the technological framework should be of ex-ante regulation which follows the mechanism of preventing a wrong to happen.

It was also stated that the MEITY has no legal enforcement and therefore the big companies and intermediaries are not legally binding to follow the advice [7].

Conclusion :

Things are not what they seem. Especially with the developing technology, it is hard to identify the origin of a particular media format. It is essential for a country like India which has a huge number of internet users to have specific legislation which extends the scope of regulating artificial intelligence and deepfakes.

It is important to recognize the need for artificial intelligence in the existing work culture of the country, however, it should not be done at the expense of violation of one’s right to privacy which is protected under the Constitution along with the new DPDP Act, 2023

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

[1] Abha Shah and Nitika Nagar, The deepfake Dilemma : Navigating truth and deception in Today’s digital era, MONDAQ (Dec 14, 2023) https://www.mondaq.com/india/new-technology/1401876/the-deepfake-dilemma-navigating-truth-and-deception-in-todays-digital-era#:~:text=Deepfake%20technology%20refers%20to%20a,of%20deep%20learning%20and%20fake.

[2] The information Technology Act, 2000 (Act. No 21 of 2000)

[3] The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, G.S,R. 139(E), published in the Gazette of India.

[4] Deep Fake issue : IT ministry tells social media platforms to comply with rules or face action, MINT (Dec 26,2023) https://www.livemint.com/technology/tech-news/govt-ministry-deepfake-advisory-content-not-permitted-it-rules-must-be-clearly-communicated-to-users-11703598291391.html

[5]PIB Delhi  MeitY issues advisory to all intermediaries to comply with existing IT rules, PIB

( 26 DEC 2023 6:34PM) https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1990542#:~:text=The%20directive%20specifically%20targets%20the,clearly%20and%20precisely%20to%20users.

[6] India: MeitY set to introduce regulations on deepfakes, ONE TRUST DATAGUIDANCE (Nov 23, 2023) https://www.dataguidance.com/news/india-meity-set-introduce-regulations-deepfakes

[7] Aaratrika Bhaumik, Regulating deepfakes and generative AI in India | Explained, THE HINDU (Dec 4, 2023) https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/regulating-deepfakes-generative-ai-in-india-explained/article67591640.ece

0

Legal Scrutiny Surrounding Section 6A of the Citizenship Act

Blog, blog

Introduction

In accordance with the provisions outlined in the Assam Accord of 1985, Section 6A was added as a crucial part of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985. The Assam Accord was a historic agreement that sought to resolve the complicated issues surrounding immigration and citizenship in the Indian state of Assam. Section 6A was a consequential measure meant to address certain concerns and considerations expressed in the agreement. The passage of Section 6A demonstrated a dedication to tackling the distinct socio-political conditions of Assam and was essential in moulding the regional law structure for citizenship affairs.

The Assamese-specific addition of Section 6A to the Citizenship Act of 1955 was essential to the Assam Accord’s implementation. Before the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, there was widespread migration, which presented significant issues that were addressed by the enactment of this special provision. Of particular note is Section 6A, which requires the identification and removal of foreigners who entered Assam after March 25, 1971, a significant date that marks the establishment of Bangladesh.

Background

The Central Government, the State Government of Assam, and prominent figures from the Assam Movement signed the Assam Accord in 1985, which is a noteworthy tripartite agreement to be considered. The principal objective behind the strategic formulation of this historic agreement was to stop the flood of undocumented migrants from Bangladesh into the state of Assam. Known for its large-scale demonstrations and activity, the Assam Movement was instrumental in bringing the region’s complicated immigration and citizenship concerns to light and giving them attention. With regard to Assam’s socio-political landscape, the agreement was evidence of the cooperative efforts made in an attempt to find a comprehensive and long-lasting solution to the problems brought about by the flood of illegal migrants.  

The provision provides that those who have come to Assam on or after January 1, 1966 but before March 25, 1971 from specified territories, including Bangladesh, as per the  Citizenship Act amended in 1985, and since then are residents of Assam must register themselves under section 18 for citizenship. As a result, the provision fixes March 25, 1971 as the cut-off date for granting citizenship to Bangladeshi migrants in Assam.[1]

Under the terms of the Assam Accord, people who were classified as foreigners in Assam had to register according to guidelines set by the Central Government. These people were given all the rights and responsibilities of citizens for ten years after their status as foreigners was discovered, with the significant exception of being listed on any assembly or parliamentary constituency’s electoral rolls.

The people who fit into this category were supposed to become citizens at the end of the ten years. According to the revised National Register of Citizens (NRC) that was released in Assam in 2019, March 25, 1971, was the designated cut-off date for determining citizenship. Since it corresponds with the time leading up to the Bangladesh Liberation War, which signifies the founding of Bangladesh, this deadline is noteworthy. Following this date was an attempt to address and normalise people’s position in Assam in a way that was in line with the Assam Accord’s concerns and the historical background.  

Challenged in 2012

In 2012, the Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha and others have plead that Section 6A is “unconstitutional” as it establishes a different cut-off date for Indian citizenship in Assam than in the rest of India – July 1948. It has urged that 1951 be considered as the cut-off date for inclusion in the NRC instead of 1971 for Assam. Other organisations have intervened in favour of the section. While hearing the 2012 plea, a two-judge bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton had framed 13 questions on Section 6 A for deliberation by a constitutional bench, in an order passed on December 17, 2014.[2]

There are important constitutional and legal issues raised by the petitioners’ case against Section 6A, which claims that it would violate Article 6 of the Indian Constitution. Those who moved from Pakistan to India during the split are in fact covered by Article 6 of the Constitution with regard to their citizenship status. As per the provisions of Article 6, those who arrived in India prior to July 19, 1949, would automatically obtain Indian citizenship in case either of their parents or grandparents was born there. The main argument posits that Section 6A, which relates to Assam alone and deals with citizenship matters concerning those who came into the state after March 25, 1971, may not align with the values outlined in Article 6. Section 6A is a source of worry as it establishes distinct standards for citizenship in Assam, which might potentially clash with the larger constitutional structure that determines citizenship through migration.

The opponents contend that separating Assam for special citizenship requirements, as outlined in Section 6A, calls into question the fair treatment of people in other states dealing with same migration-related problems. The selective implementation of Section 6A may be viewed as arbitrary and a breach of the equality principle if other states with similar issues are not subject to equivalent rules. It is implied that citizens of Assam are subject to different citizenship laws than citizens of other states by Section 6A’s exclusive application to the state. One could argue that this unequal treatment goes against the fundamental constitutional precept that every person should be treated equally before the law, regardless of where they live. Some argue that it is unfair to treat Assamese citizens differently from other citizens. If people in Assam are subject to different regulations than their counterparts in other states that have comparable immigration issues, this could be viewed as unjust and give rise to concerns about the constitutionality of such discriminatory treatment.

Recent Developments

A five-judge Supreme Court bench commenced hearing from December 5th  on 17 petitions to examine the constitutional validity of section 6A of the Citizenship Act relating to illegal immigrants in Assam.[3]

According to the petitioner’s statement, ethnicity, language, religion, or culture are not the basis for defining Indian citizenship, nor are they defined by ethno-nationalist ideals. Rather, it underscores the inclusive nature of Indian citizenship and rejects the establishment of an ancestor-based hierarchy. Whether a person obtained citizenship by birth or by another method, the argument emphasises that all citizens are equal before the law. This implies opposition to any attempt to rank citizens as greater or inferior on the basis of their citizenship process or lineage. The petitioners seek to have Section 6A challenged in order to deprive those who profited from it of their citizenship, according to the statement. Particular to Assam, Section 6A addresses citizenship matters pertaining to people who came into the state after a specified date. There is mention of the 2013–14 Assamese National Register of Citizens (NRC) initiative. The initiative, which was overseen by the Supreme Court, was designed to identify foreign nationals. It appears from the statement that the petitioners want the results of this extensive exercise to be reversed.

Malvika Trivedi appeared for All Assam Students’ Union (AASU), one of the original signatories to the 1985 Assam Accord. Trivedi submitted that the “continuing problems” in Assam arising out of illegal migration are a consequence of the “woefully inadequate” implementation of the accord, and not because of the enactment of Section 6A. Salman Khurshid, appearing for the Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha, argued that India prefers a “salad bowl” approach, signifying a multicultural society, as opposed to a “melting pot” approach that aims to create a single identity. He added that Assam has a history of migration over centuries, resulting in a “variety of cultures, racial origins, identities, languages, and dialects,” as per his written submissions. He argued that Section 6A puts a stop to further migration while maintaining cultural diversity.[4]

Impacts

The granting of citizenship under Section 6A has come under scrutiny since it is thought to have contributed to the influx of undocumented migrants entering Assam from Bangladesh. The unintended consequence of promoting illegal immigration and its subsequent impact on the demographic mix of the state are concerns that have been voiced. Petitioners contend that by granting citizenship to the migrant community, Section 6A would unintentionally encourage more migration, worsening demographic issues.

Petitioners express concerns regarding Section 6A’s cultural impact in addition to legal and constitutional issues. They contend that the advantages given to immigrants from other countries between 1966 and 1971 caused a large-scale demographic change that impacted Assamese culture. According to the petitioners, Section 6A may have contributed to a drastic shift in the population with ramifications for culture and “cementing an illegality” by acknowledging these migrants as citizens.[5]

 Scrutiny of Section 6A

Section 6A of the Citizenship Act has a complicated legal and constitutional landscape that highlights the delicate balance between local concerns and more general constitutional norms, especially when it comes to its application in Assam. Section 6A, which addresses particular migratory difficulties in the state, was introduced with the support of the Assam Accord of 1985, a historic tripartite accord. Nonetheless, there have been objections raised regarding its compliance with the provisions of the constitution, including Articles 6 and 14. It is important to consider whether citizenship standards are uniform, especially for individuals who migrated during the division, in light of the argument that Section 6A may violate Article 6. The distinct deadline set by Section 6A for Assam, which deviates from the national standard, puts regional needs and the larger constitutional framework at odds.  

Conclusion

The constitutional issues brought up against Section 6A highlight the necessity for a sophisticated approach that balances regional nuances with the fundamental principles of equality and consistency in citizenship rules, even if the Assam Accord aimed to address unique concerns in the state. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming proceedings would be crucial in deciding the future of Section 6A and whether it is constitutionally permissible in India. The decision’s ruling will probably have a significant impact on how complicated matters like citizenship and migration are handled when striking a delicate balance between regional uniqueness and constitutional uniformity.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Rupika Goundla

References

Drishti IAS. “Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.” Accessed December 31, 2023. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/section-6a-of-the-citizenship-act-1955.   

NDTV.com. “Assam Illegal Immigrants: Supreme Court Examines Validity of Citizenship Act Section 6A.” Accessed December 31, 2023. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/assam-illegal-immigrants-supreme-court-examines-validity-of-citizenship-act-section-6a-4634738.

guwahatiplus.com. “Supreme Court Hearing Examines Section 6A’s Impact on Assam Accord.” Accessed December 31, 2023. https://guwahatiplus.com/assam/supreme-court-hearing-examines-section-6as-impact-on-assam-accord.

www.ETGovernment.com. “SC to Examine Validity of Citizenship Act’s Section 6A on Dec 5 – et Government.” ETGovernment.com. Accessed December 31, 2023. https://government.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/governance/sc-to-examine-validity-of-citizenship-acts-section-6a-on-dec-5/105716583.

shanKariasacademy. “Section 6A of Citizenship Act | GS II | Current Affairs.” www.iasparliament.com. Accessed December 31, 2023. https://www.iasparliament.com/current-affairs/gs-ii/section-6a-of-citizenship-act.

Supreme Court Observer. “Section 6A of the Citizenship Act | Day 4: Supreme Court Reserves Judgement.” Accessed December 31, 2023. https://www.scobserver.in/reports/section-6a-of-the-citizenship-act-day-4-supreme-court-reserves-judgement/. 

[1] www.ETGovernment.com. “SC to Examine Validity of Citizenship Act’s Section 6A on Dec 5 – et Government.” ETGovernment.com. Accessed December 31, 2023. https://government.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/governance/sc-to-examine-validity-of-citizenship-acts-section-6a-on-dec-5/105716583.

[2] shanKariasacademy. “Section 6A of Citizenship Act | GS II | Current Affairs.” www.iasparliament.com. Accessed December 31, 2023. https://www.iasparliament.com/current-affairs/gs-ii/section-6a-of-citizenship-act.

[3] NDTV.com. “Assam Illegal Immigrants: Supreme Court Examines Validity of Citizenship Act Section 6A.” Accessed December 31, 2023. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/assam-illegal-immigrants-supreme-court-examines-validity-of-citizenship-act-section-6a-4634738.

[4] Supreme Court Observer. “Section 6A of the Citizenship Act | Day 4: Supreme Court Reserves Judgement.” Accessed December 31, 2023. https://www.scobserver.in/reports/section-6a-of-the-citizenship-act-day-4-supreme-court-reserves-judgement/. 

[5] Drishti IAS. “Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.” Accessed December 31, 2023. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/section-6a-of-the-citizenship-act-1955.   

1 … 171 172 173 174 175 … 1,854