HomeNewsBusinessFencing on Indo-Bangladesh border substantially hindered due to non-cooperation: Centre to SC

Fencing on Indo-Bangladesh border substantially hindered due to non-cooperation: Centre to SC

The bench reserved order on 17 petitions questioning the constitutional validity of Section 6A, which was inserted into the Citizenship Act as a special provision to deal with the citizenship of people covered under the Assam Accord.

December 12, 2023 / 21:27 IST
Story continues below Advertisement
The SG explained before the court the steps taken to curb the influx of illegal immigrants, particularly the states in the North-East.
The SG explained before the court the steps taken to curb the influx of illegal immigrants, particularly the states in the North-East.

The Indo-Bangladesh border fencing project has been hindered due to non-cooperation of the West Bengal government and pending land acquisition issues in the state, the Centre told the Supreme Court on Tuesday during the hearing of petitions challenging Section 6A of the Citizenship Act related to grant of Indian citizenship to illegal immigrants in Assam.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud that the Union government has taken multi-pronged steps to secure the Indo-Bangalesh border. The law officer told the apex court that West Bengal shares a 2,216.7 km border with Bangladesh and 81.5 per cent fencing has been done. All efforts are being made to secure the remaining length through fencing or technological solutions.

Story continues below Advertisement

"It is submitted West Bengal Government follows a far slower, more complex direct land purchase policy. Even for national security purposes like border fencing, there is non-cooperation by the state government. If the State of West Bengal cooperates in acquiring the land and hands over the land for fencing, the central government will do so," Mehta told the bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, M M Sundresh, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

The SG explained before the court the steps taken to curb the influx of illegal immigrants, particularly the states in the North-East. The top court, which reserved its order on the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6A, also heard submissions of senior advocates Shyam Divan and Kapil Sibal. Divan submitted there was no temporal limit to the operation of Section 6A and individuals could still apply for citizenship under it.