The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, by a 4:1 majority, affirming the Assam Accord’s provisions aimed at addressing illegal migration. This ruling, delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench, has significant implications for Assam and its demographic scenario.
Here are 10 key points from the Supreme Court’s judgment:
1. Majority decision: The judgment was delivered by a five-judge bench, with Chief Justice DY Chandrachud leading, alongside Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. Justice Pardiwala dissented, deeming Section 6A unconstitutional.
2. Political and legislative solution: CJI Chandrachud stated that the Assam Accord served as a political solution to illegal migration issues, while Section 6A provided the necessary legislative framework.
3. Parliamentary competence: The majority opinion confirmed that Parliament had the authority to enact Section 6A, aiming to balance humanitarian concerns with the protection of local populations.
4. Rationale for Assam’s exclusion: The apex court acknowledged the higher percentage of immigrants in Assam compared to other border states, justifying the special focus on Assam.
5. Impact of migration: The judgment noted that the impact of approximately 40 lakh migrants in Assam is more significant than that of 57 lakh in West Bengal, due to Assam’s smaller land area.
6. Cultural heritage protection: CJI Chandrachud ruled that the presence of diverse ethnic groups does not inherently infringe upon the rights to protect linguistic and cultural heritage under Article 29(1) of the Constitution.
7. Fraternity principle: Justice Surya Kant, in agreement with the majority, rejected claims that Section 6A violated the principle of fraternity outlined in the Preamble, emphasising a broader understanding of community dynamics.
8. Rejection of “Manifest Arbitrariness”: The Supreme Court dismissed arguments of “manifest arbitrariness” concerning the cut-off date established by Section 6A, asserting it did not violate constitutional principles.
9. Implementation of legal provisions: Justice Kant highlighted inadequacies in the statutory machinery for identifying illegal migrants, stressing the need for effective monitoring and enforcement of legislative objectives.
10. Supreme Court oversight: The ruling mandated the Supreme Court to maintain ongoing oversight of the implementation of directives concerning illegal migrants, ensuring that executive authorities adhere to legislative frameworks.
This judgment not only upholds the legality of Section 6A but also highlights the complex interplay between migration policies, cultural preservation and constitutional rights in Assam.
Link to article –
10 key takeaways from SC’s ruling upholding Section 6A of Citizenship Act
