Govt. needs latitude to make peace, says CJI🗞

⭐Noting that the government should be given leeway if a ‘compromise’ is necessary to save the nation, Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud said on Wednesday that the Assam Accord of 1985 and the new citizenship regime which followed in its wake might have been an “adjustment” reached by the Rajiv Gandhi government to calm the waves of violent anti-immigrant protests that rolled over the northeastern State for years, and threatened national peace.

⭐“You must give the government that latitude. Even today, there are States in the northeast affected by insurgency and violence...,” Chief Justice Chandrachud, heading a Constitution Bench, observed.

⭐The Bench was hearing a series of petitions filed by indigenous groups from Assam which have challenged Section 6A of the Citizenship Act of 1955.

⭐The petitioners, represented by senior advocate Shyam Divan, claimed the provision became a “beacon” for more foreign “infiltration” into Assam, leading to the destruction of the local cultural identity.

🌟Mr. Divan said a justification that there was a violent political agitation, leading to a political settlement, was not sufficient basis to single out Assam for implementing an entirely new citizenship regime under Section 6A.

🌟“Illegal immigration into Assam has been rewarded with the benefits of Indian citizenship,” Mr. Divan submitted.

🌟“Obviously, every compromise made is never perfect. The State of Assam was riven with strife at the time. Does the government arrive at this compromise to bring peace to Assam or allow the strife-ridden State to continue in its path of violence merely because the compromise may ‘discriminate’ among States... These are vexed issues. Any solution found can be an inexact one,” the CJI asked Mr. Divan.

🌟But the senior lawyer argued that Section 6A was discriminatory in itself.

Sources of HCFs. Credit: Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC)

While reviewing the answer sheets of various aspirants, including the topper and those who didn't make it to the mains result list, I observed that many candidates possess good content but struggle with proper representation according to the question's requirements.

Some candidates include content that was not even asked, failing to adhere to the specified dimensions. It's crucial to focus on what the question demands, rather than writing everything one knows.

Others write in a disorganized manner, lacking a timeline, proper structure, and the use of relevant keywords. In contrast, the topper writes succinctly, addressing all dimensions specified in the question.

Some aspirants forget to substantiate their arguments, neglecting to provide examples where needed. It's essential to support points with relevant examples.

Lastly, some candidates mention incorrect or outdated data, emphasizing the importance of using accurate information.

Introductions and conclusions serve as the first and last impressions. Some aspirants make a poor impression by writing haphazardly.