Section 6A of the Citizenship Act — why it fails Assam

In October 2024, the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, by a 4:1 majority. This provision provides a special framework for migrants from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) who settled in Assam before March 25, 1971, to acquire Indian citizenship. The judgment, however, raises concerns regarding constitutional violations and the potential negative implications of the ruling.

Constitutional Issues with Section 6A

• Violation of Article 29 – Cultural Rights: Section 6A’s provision for granting citizenship to migrants has been critiqued for violating Article 29 of the Constitution, which guarantees the protection of distinct cultural and linguistic identities. The Court's reasoning that the influx of migrants does not affect Assamese culture overlooks the reality of demographic and linguistic changes, which have led to the erosion of Assamese cultural identity.
• Temporal Unreasonableness: Section 6A suffers from temporal unreasonableness, a concept under the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness. The law allows the indefinite processing of citizenship applications without any time limit, despite the fact that the original migration issue was meant to be addressed by the 1985 Assam Accord. This perpetuates an outdated policy that no longer reflects current circumstances.
• Flawed Mechanism of Identifying Migrants: The mechanism for identifying migrants under Section 6A is flawed because it places the burden of initiating proceedings on the state without providing a process for self-identification by migrants. This has led to confusion and a backlog of cases, with foreigners' tribunals overwhelmed by the volume, further delaying the determination of citizenship status.

Impact on Assam’s Demographic and Cultural Identity

• Demographic Shifts in Assam: The judgment fails to consider the demographic shifts caused by the influx of migrants, which has led to a significant increase in the Bengali-speaking population in Assam. From 1951 to 2011, the proportion of Assamese-speaking people in Assam declined by 30.18%, while the percentage of Bengali-speaking people rose by 36.36%, highlighting the cultural displacement of the indigenous Assamese population.
• Contradictory Reasoning in the Judgment: The judgment displays contradictory reasoning by acknowledging the impact of migrant influx on the political and cultural rights of the Assamese people but simultaneously ruling that this influx does not infringe upon their ability to conserve their language and culture. This inconsistency weakens the judgment’s constitutional foundation.
• Failure to Address Cultural Erosion: The Court emphasized the abstract right of citizens to conserve culture but ignored the practical reality that the presence of large numbers of migrants undermines the cultural identity of the indigenous population. The erosion of Assamese culture, language, and social structures is a direct consequence of unchecked migration, which the Court failed to acknowledge.

Broader Implications of the Judgment

• Legal and Constitutional Gaps in Section 6A: Section 6A’s indefinite nature, combined with its flawed implementation mechanism, leads to legal and constitutional gaps. The law continues to be operational despite the absence of a clear cut-off date, resulting in unresolved migration issues that further strain the state’s resources and undermine the intent of the Assam Accord.
• Increased Political Tensions: The judgment could exacerbate political tensions in Assam, as local groups and political parties have already raised concerns over the dilution of Assamese identity due to unchecked migration. The Court’s decision might intensify these tensions by allowing the continued settlement of migrants without adequate safeguards.
• Need for Legal Reforms and Clarifications: The ruling underscores the need for reforms in both the legal framework surrounding migration and the mechanisms for granting citizenship. Legal clarity, a time-bound framework, and effective monitoring of migration flows are crucial to resolving the issues raised by Section 6A and its implications for Assam’s cultural and demographic future.

Practice Question:

Q. Critically examine the constitutional and socio-political implications of the Supreme Court's ruling on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which allows migrants from Bangladesh to acquire Indian citizenship in Assam. Discuss its impact on Assamese cultural and linguistic identity.