In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The verdict, delivered on October 17 by a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, saw a 4:1 majority with Justice J.B. Pardiwala dissenting. This ruling has significant implications for the state of Assam and the broader discourse on citizenship and immigration in India.
Section 6A was introduced as part of the Assam Accord in 1985, an agreement aimed at addressing the issue of illegal immigrants in Assam from Bangladesh. The Accord was a response to the agitation led by the All Assam Students Union (AASU) against the influx of Bengali-speaking refugees following the 1971 India-Pakistan war, which resulted in the creation of Bangladesh.
The issue of illegal immigration in Assam has deep historical roots, dating back to the partition of India in 1947. The creation of Bangladesh in 1971 further intensified the influx of Bengali-speaking refugees into Assam, leading to significant demographic changes. This has led to concerns among the indigenous Assamese population about the preservation of their cultural identity and political influence.
The Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha, a civil society group, challenged Section 6A in 2012, arguing that it was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality. The petitioners contended that having different cut-off dates for Assam compared to the rest of India (July 1948) was arbitrary and detrimental to the state’s demographic and cultural fabric.
The Central government defended Section 6A, citing Article 11 of the Constitution, which empowers Parliament to regulate citizenship. The government argued that the provision was necessary to address the specific circumstances in Assam and that declaring it unconstitutional would render many long-term residents stateless.
The Supreme Court’s majority opinion, authored by CJI Chandrachud, held that Section 6A does not violate Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution, which set a cut-off date of January 26, 1950, for conferring citizenship to migrants from East and West Pakistan. The Court emphasized that the legislative objective of Section 6A was to balance the humanitarian needs of migrants of Indian origin with the economic and cultural impacts on Indian states.
Justice Surya Kant, writing for himself and Justices M M Sundresh and Manoj Misra, said, “Section 6A falls within the bounds of the Constitution and does not contravene the foundational principles of fraternity, nor does it infringe upon Articles 6 and 7, Article 9, Article 14, Article 21, Article 29, Article 326, or Article 355 of the Constitution of India.”
CJI Chandrachud highlighted that Section 6A was designed to address the unique situation in Assam, where the impact of migration was more pronounced due to the state’s smaller land area compared to other states like West Bengal. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to prove that the presence of another ethnic group prevented the protection of the original group’s language and culture.
“Undocumented migrants could be registered as citizens under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act before it was amended by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2003 to exclude ‘illegal immigrants’. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that Section 6A is unconstitutional because instead of preventing migration to Assam, it incentivizes migrants in other states to come to Assam to secure citizenship through Section 6A is erroneous,” said the Supreme Court bench.
The judgment pointed out that the Central government could have extended the application of the Act to other areas but chose not to, recognizing the unique challenges faced by Assam.
Justice JB Pardiwala, however dissented on the ruling saying that the provision is “manifestly arbitrary” and “in the absence of any temporal limit to its application, with the efflux of time is rather counter-serving the object with which it was enacted.”
He said the “open-ended nature of Section 6A has, with the passage of time, become more prone to abuse” and “promotes further immigration into Assam – immigrants come hoping with forged documents to set up the defence of belonging to pre-1966 or the 1966-71 stream upon identification as a foreigner and reference to the tribunal”.
“…while the object that was sought to be achieved long back with the aid of the enactment of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act remained a distant dream, its misuse has only continued to increase with the efflux of time.”
“Section 6A does not clash with the IEAA — Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 — or established principles of international law,” said the ruling.
Section 6A grants citizenship to people of Indian origin who entered Assam before January 1, 1966, and have been residents since then. Those who arrived between January 1, 1966, and March 24, 1971, were given citizenship rights but were barred from voting for ten years. Migrants entering after March 25, 1971, are considered illegal immigrants and subject to deportation.
The Supreme Court’s decision upholds the basis on which the 2019 National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam was prepared. The NRC, which aims to identify illegal immigrants, has been a contentious issue, with significant political and social ramifications.
In 2014, the Supreme Court of India ordered the update of the NRC in Assam. This directive was part of a larger effort to identify and document all legal citizens in the state, distinguishing them from illegal immigrants. The process involved verifying the citizenship status of residents based on the NRC of 1951 and electoral rolls up to March 24, 1971.
Justice JB Pardiwala criticised Section 6A for failing to effectively help the state identify and remove immigrants from the 1966-71 period from electoral rolls. He argued that it allows these immigrants to stay on the rolls indefinitely and only register under Section 6A when detected, which undermines the goal of quickly identifying and processing these immigrants for citizenship.
Poltical Stance
The illegal entry of Bangladeshis has been a major political issue, particularly for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Asom Gana Parishad (AGP). Both parties have campaigned vigorously against what they perceive as a threat to India’s integrity and security. They argue that the influx of immigrants to Assam and other states is a deliberate attempt to alter the demographic composition of border areas, which could have significant cultural and political implications.
The BJP and AGP have framed the issue as a national security threat, suggesting that unchecked immigration could lead to increased crime and instability in border regions. They claim that the demographic changes brought about by the influx of Bangladeshi immigrants could undermine the cultural identity of indigenous communities in Assam and other border states.
The BJP has been heavily leveraging on the issue in the lead up to the Jharkhand Assembly Polls. The party’s narrative of protecting national security and cultural identity could appeal to voters concerned about similar issues in their own state. The BJP’s strategy is likely to involve highlighting its efforts in Assam as a model for addressing illegal immigration and promising similar measures in Jharkhand.
Manbilas Singh is a talented writer and journalist who focuses on the finer details in every story and values integrity above everything. A self-proclaimed sleuth, he strives to expose the fine print behind seemingly mundane activities and aims to uncover the truth that is hidden from the general public. In his time away from work, he is a music aficionado and a nerd who revels in video & board games, books and Formula 1.
Comments