Supreme Court judgments are not just important for what “law they declare” but, at times, also for the context in which such pronouncements are made, and on what basis. The history of litigation gives us a better understanding of the true significance of the apex court’s rulings as contentious political questions routinely end up in constitutional courts and judges become final arbiters of politics when they decide such questions. The Section 6A judgment is a classic example, where context and litigation history are of great significance.

The modern idea of universal citizenship originated in France. Nationality was understood as citizenship, which conferred rights and duties on a citizen and made the latter accept the value system of the nation. One could claim citizenship because of one’s affirmation of and affiliation to the core principles of the French Republic.

Territorialisation as a central tenet of citizenship came much later with citizenship becoming more of a “status” than a “belief in core values”. Indeed, if citizenship signifies belonging to a political community, it must ideally be based on adherence to some principles, not birth. French citizenship was granted to outsiders, including Thomas Paine, the British-born founding father of America. The Constitution of 1793 granted citizenship to aliens living in France for over a year for work or to one who married a French woman and, more importantly, anyone who adopted a child or supported an old man or deserved humane treatment. Only subsequently, in France and elsewhere, did birth become all-important. Then, regressive countries even added the additional condition of blood ties to the grant of citizenship. Today, citizenship is often a tool for exclusion and “othering”.

B R Ambedkar admitted in the Constituent Assembly that no article gave him........

© Indian Express