Supreme Court upholds validity of Section 6A of Citizenship Act
The Supreme Court of India has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which deals with the granting of Indian citizenship to immigrants covered by the 1985 Assam Accord. The verdict was delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench, comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra. Justice JB Pardiwala was the lone dissenting voice.
Court's rationale behind upholding Section 6A
Section 6A allows those who entered India between January 1, 1966 and March 25, 1971 and have been living in Assam to register as Indian citizens. While passing the judgment, Chief Justice Chandrachud said the Assam Accord was a political solution to the problem of illegal migration, while Section 6A was the legislative solution. It was observed that Section 6A sought to balance humanitarian concerns with protecting the local population from potential threats posed by unchecked immigration.
Court finds no arbitrariness in singling out Assam
The court also found no arbitrariness in singling out Assam as it had a higher percentage of immigrants than other border states. The cut-off date of March 25, 1971, was rational as it coincided with the end of the Bangladesh liberation war. This provision was "neither over-inclusive nor under-inclusive." Justice Surya Kant rejected arguments that Section 6A violated the fraternity principle in the Constitution's Preamble and that it affects Assamese culture and language due to immigration.
Court dismisses claims of impact on Assamese culture
He detailed conclusions regarding Section 6A: immigrants entering Assam before January 1, 1966, are Indian citizens; those entering between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971 can apply for citizenship if eligible; those entering on or after March 25, 1971 are illegal immigrants liable to be detected and deported. The court ordered enforcement of measures to detect illegal migrants according to earlier judgments. It stressed constant monitoring by the Supreme Court for proper implementation.
Petitioners argued Section 6A violated constitutional principles
Petitioners contended that Section 6A breached constitutional principles such as fraternity and fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21, and 29. They argued it compromised democracy and federalism. The case's journey started in 2012 when Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha questioned Section 6A's validity, stating that it is discriminatory, arbitrary, and unlawful. Subsequently, other organizations from Assam also filed petitions challenging the provision.
What is the Assam Accord
The Assam Accord was signed on August 15, 1985, between the Centre and leaders of the Assam Movement in response to a massive inflow of refugees during the Bangladesh liberation war. The protestors demanded the identification and deportation of all illegal foreigners, as they feared that large-scale migration would impact their political, culture, language, and land rights. As a humanitarian measure, Section 6A was introduced, allowing migrants who arrived before March 25, 1971 to get citizenships but without voting rights.
