The Supreme Court of India rendered a landmark decision today, October 17, affirming the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which relates to the Assam Accord, with a 4:1 majority ruling. The 5-Judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, included Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. Notably, Justice Pardiwala dissented, deeming Section 6A unconstitutional.
In his opinion, Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasised that the Assam Accord represents a political resolution to the issue of illegal migration, while Section 6A serves as the legislative framework to support it. The majority opinion asserted that Parliament possesses the authority to enact this provision, which seeks to reconcile humanitarian considerations with the necessity of safeguarding the interests of the local populace.
The apex court justified the focus on Assam as distinct from other states sharing borders with Bangladesh, arguing that the proportion of immigrants in Assam is significantly greater compared to other border states. The situation is exacerbated by Assam’s smaller land area, which intensifies the effects of approximately 40 lakh migrants in comparison to the 57 lakh migrants in West Bengal.
Justice Chandrachud further articulated that the existence of diverse ethnic groups within a state does not inherently violate the fundamental right to preserve linguistic and cultural heritage as guaranteed by Article 29(1) of the Constitution. The burden of proof lies with the petitioners to demonstrate that one ethnic group cannot safeguard its language and culture merely due to the presence of another group.
According to LiveLaw, Justice Surya Kant, delivering the judgment on behalf of himself and Justices Sundresh and Misra, dismissed the petitioners’ claim that Section 6A contravenes the principle of fraternity enshrined in the Constitution’s Preamble. He argued that fraternity should not be narrowly construed to imply a right to choose one’s neighbors.
The Supreme Court also refuted claims of “manifest arbitrariness” regarding the stipulated cut-off date for migrants. In response to the concerns raised about Article 29, Justice Kant concluded that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any adverse effects on Assamese culture and language resulting from immigration. In fact, Section 6A mandates that migrants entering after the cut-off date be detained and deported.
Moreover, the argument asserting a violation of Article 21 was also dismissed, as the petitioners did not establish any constitutionally valid grounds for their claims. Justice Kant reiterated the necessity for implementing directives from the Sarbananda Sonowal judgment regarding the identification and deportation of illegal migrants, pointing out that the current statutory mechanisms and tribunals are inadequate for timely enforcement of legislative goals outlined in Section 6A, the Foreigners Act, and related laws.
He emphasised that the execution of these provisions should not be left solely to the discretion of executive authorities. Thus, continuous monitoring by the Supreme Court is essential and the matters will be presented before a bench for ongoing oversight of these directives.
Earlier the bench conducted a four-day hearing on the matter before reserving judgment on December 12, 2023.
During the previous proceedings, the apex court instructed the Ministry of Home Affairs to provide comprehensive data on the inflow of illegal migrants to Assam and the northeastern states following March 25, 1971, which marks the period after Bangladesh declared its independence. The Supreme Court specifically requested data-based disclosures that included various aspects such as the grant of citizenship to immigrants across different time frames and insights into the functioning of the Foreigners Tribunals that have been established.
Historical context
Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, was introduced following the Assam Accord of 1985, which aimed to resolve the longstanding issues surrounding immigration from Bangladesh. This provision grants citizenship to individuals who entered Assam from Bangladesh before March 24, 1971. The Assam Accord was a response to widespread agitation by groups like the All Assam Students Union (AASU), who sought to address demographic changes and protect the cultural identity of the indigenous Assamese people.
This section also grants citizenship to immigrants from Bangladesh who entered Assam before January 1, 1966 and requires the detection and deportation of foreigners who entered Assam after March 25, 1971. Additionally, it grants temporary citizenship to people who entered Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971 and allows the Central Government to make rules for the registration of people who entered Assam during this period. Section 6A was added to the Citizenship Act as part of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, created to address the large-scale migration that occurred before the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War.
Key provisions of Section 6A
Citizenship criteria: Section 6A specifies that individuals who entered Assam within the specified timeframe are eligible for citizenship. This provision is crucial in determining the status of a significant population within the state, granting them rights similar to those of Indian citizens, albeit with restrictions on voting for a decade after registration?.
Impact on indigenous communities: Critics argued that Section 6A has facilitated illegal immigration, which undermines the rights and opportunities of native Assamese communities. This has led to growing tensions between these groups and new settlers, who are perceived to be competing for limited resources.
Legal challenges: The constitutionality of Section 6A is now upheld by the Supreme Court of India, which evaluated whether the provision unfairly targets Assam by providing a specific cut-off date for citizenship. The lead petitioner, AASU, contended that this provision is unconstitutional and exacerbates demographic issues in the state.
Recent developments
Interaction with the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA): The introduction of the Citizenship Amendment Act in 2019 complicated the situation further. The CAA provides expedited citizenship to certain religious minorities from neighbouring countries, excluding Muslims, which has raised concerns about the secular nature of Indian citizenship laws. This interplay between Section 6A and the CAA has sparked widespread protests and debates about citizenship rights in India.
Societal implications: The overlap between Section 6A and the CAA intensified discussions about secularism and inclusion in India. Many view the CAA as a departure from India’s secular principles, leading to nationwide protests advocating for equal rights for all citizens, regardless of religion.
Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, is a significant provision reflecting the complexities surrounding immigration and citizenship in Assam. Its implications resonate deeply within the socio-political landscape of India, raising essential questions about identity, belonging and the role of the state in regulating citizenship.
Link to article –
SC upholds constitutional validity of Section 6A of Citizenship Act
