.png)
. 24/10/2024 4:28 PM
Supreme Court Upholds Section 6A of Citizenship Act for Assam: Key Implications
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. This provision, specific to Assam, was introduced through the Assam Accord of 1985, addressing the issue of migrants entering the state from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). The Court's decision was delivered by a Constitution Bench with a 4:1 majority, with Justice Surya Kant authoring the majority opinion and Justice JB Pardiwala dissenting.
Section 6A was incorporated into the Citizenship Act following the Assam Accord, which sought to address the influx of migrants into Assam during the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971. Under this section:
Migrants who entered Assam before March 25, 1971, can obtain Indian citizenship.
Migrants arriving after this date are considered foreigners and subject to deportation.
Individuals who arrived between January 1, 1966, and March 24, 1971, are granted citizenship but without voting rights for 10 years.
Several petitioners, including NGOs, challenged Section 6A, claiming it discriminates against certain groups of migrants, violating Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality. They argued it also conflicted with Articles 6 and 7, related to citizenship for those displaced during Partition, and altered Assam’s demographic balance, threatening the cultural identity of the indigenous Assamese population. They contended that this situation amounts to "external aggression" and "internal disturbance," requiring protection under Article 355.
The majority opinion, authored by Justices Kant and Chandrachud, upheld Section 6A, recognizing Assam’s unique historical and demographic context. They ruled that the provision did not breach Article 14, as it struck a balance between humanitarian concerns and the need to manage Assam's cultural and economic pressures. The Court emphasized that Section 6A complements Articles 6 and 7 and affirmed Parliament's authority under Article 11 to establish citizenship laws.
The majority also stated that Section 6A supports cultural coexistence rather than exclusion, and urged better enforcement of this section, especially in identifying and deporting illegal immigrants.
In his dissent, Justice Pardiwala argued that Section 6A had outlived its relevance and was now inconsistent with constitutional principles. He noted that the provision failed to curb illegal immigration and lacked a "sunset clause," which could prevent continued migration. Pardiwala criticized the reliance on state intervention for detecting illegal immigrants, arguing it undermined the Citizenship Act's intent.
This decision reinforces the March 25, 1971, cut-off date, a key element of Assam's National Register of Citizens (NRC), which identified 19 lakh residents as potential non-citizens. The ruling may also influence ongoing debates around the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019, which offers citizenship to non-Muslim migrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, setting a different cut-off date of December 31, 2014.
The Supreme Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to provide comprehensive data on illegal migrants in Assam and other northeastern states post-March 25, 1971, including the grant of citizenship and operations of Foreigners Tribunals.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Section 6A underscores the complexity of Assam's immigration issues and the balance between humanitarian and demographic concerns. While the decision reinforces the existing framework for handling migration, it also highlights the ongoing debates around citizenship, cultural identity, and immigration in India.
