If we talk about infiltrators then why use the example of adultery? Judge’s comment: Jaan will say- Wow! what did you say

New Delhi: Supreme Court judge Justice JB Pardiwala termed Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 as unconstitutional and irrelevant. Expressing disagreement with the opinion of four fellow judges of the Constitution Bench, he/she gave several arguments in his/her favor. However, the Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud in a 4:1 verdict declared Section 6A constitutional.

Justice Pardiwala’s opinion is different from other judges

In a separate judgment, Justice Pardiwala said that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act has become unconstitutional over time, even though it was constitutional when it was enacted in 1985. Justice Pardiwala referred to the principle of ‘temporal inconsistency of time’, which states that a law which was fair and valid earlier may become arbitrary over time. he/she gave the example of how a provision in the Buildings Control Act of Andhra Pradesh became redundant over time. In this context, he/she pointed out that if a classification is no longer linked to its purpose, it may become arbitrary and discriminatory.

Presented his/her point of view by giving examples of Supreme Court decisions

In his/her arguments, Justice Pardiwal also referred to the case ‘Joseph Shine vs. Union of India’, in which the constitutionality of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was challenged. In this case it was said that the provision is only for men and deprives women of their rights. The Court found that there was no reasonable criterion and the classification was fraught with gender discrimination.

Justice Pardiwala’s opinion, citing the doctrine of temporal unreasonableness, says that even though Section 6A(3) was constitutional at the time of its enactment in 1985, it has become unconstitutional with the passage of time because the provision was not intended to address the problem of Has not been effective enough. One of the established principles of judicial review is that a law which was fair and valid at the time it was enacted may become arbitrary with the passage of time.

Justice Pardiwala gave the example of Motor General Traders vs. State of Andhra Pradesh to explain this. It challenged the constitutional validity of Section 32(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960, which exempted all buildings constructed on or after August 26, 1957, from the purview of the Act. The petitioners challenged the provision on the grounds that it had become unreasonable with the passage of time. This argument was accepted by a two-judge bench of the same court. The then learned Chief Justice ES Venkataramaiah, writing for the bench, had pointed out that a non-discriminatory provision could, with the passage of time, become discriminatory and violative of Article 14.

Mention of change in the law of adultery

In this sequence, Justice Pardiwala also talked about the case of adultery. he/she said, ‘In the case of Joseph Shine vs Union of India, the constitutional validity of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was challenged on the grounds of violation of Articles 14 and 15. Section 497 defines the crime of adultery in such a way that when a person has sexual intercourse with a woman knowing that she is someone’s wife and does not obtain the consent of her husband to have sexual intercourse, then that person commits adultery. Is guilty of.

he/she explained how this later proved to be inconsistent. Justice Pardiwala said, ‘One argument was that the provision was less inclusive because it dealt only with the situation where a man had sexual relations with a married woman without the consent of the husband, but not vice versa. That is, if a woman has sexual relations with a married man without the consent of the man’s wife, then her action is not considered a crime.

When the attention of the Supreme Court was drawn to this discrimination, the Constitution Bench examined the provision in accordance with its high standard of review. The same court then held that there was no rational criteria for classification and that the criteria were steeped in gender stereotypes where there was no need to obtain a woman’s consent. Justice Pardiwala said, ‘In my concurring opinion, I note that the problem with Section 497 was not just that it was ‘less inclusive’ but that it rendered women inferior to men.’

Justice Pardiwala’s comments are very important

Justice Pardiwala then explained that the unconstitutionality of Section 6A depends on whether it is no longer serving its original purpose. If a provision no longer remains fair over time, it can be challenged in court. his/her view reflects the depth of the Indian judicial system and its commitment to protecting constitutional values.

What is the matter of Section 6A, understand

A special provision of Section 6A was made by amending the Citizenship Act, 1955 to grant Indian citizenship to Bangladeshis who had entered Assam. An agreement was reached on August 15, 1985 between the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and the student organizations of Assam who were leading campaigns against the arrival of Bangladeshis. Under the same agreement, by adding Section 6A to the Citizenship Act, a provision was made for relaxation in the process of granting citizenship to Bangladeshis who came to Assam. However, the rules mentioned in this provision could not be followed and today Assam is facing many threats posed by Bangladeshi infiltrators. This is the reason why the legality of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 was challenged in the Supreme Court.