Supreme Court Judgment on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act

The Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, through a 4:1 majority ruling. This decision has significant implications for the citizenship status of migrants in Assam and raises critical questions about the intersection of law, culture, and electoral rights.

What is Section 6A?

• Section 6A was introduced following the Assam Accord of 1985, a political agreement aimed at addressing the concerns of illegal migration from Bangladesh into Assam. The provision allows for:
  • Deemed Citizenship: Immigrants who entered Assam before January 1, 1966, are recognized as Indian citizens.
  • Eligibility for Citizenship: Immigrants who entered between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, can apply for Indian citizenship if they meet certain criteria.
  • Illegal Immigrants: Those who entered Assam after March 25, 1971, are deemed illegal immigrants and are subject to deportation.
• Section 6A is central to the contentious issue of citizenship in Assam. The Assam National Register of Citizens (NRC), created to identify illegal immigrants, was first introduced following the 1951 national census.
  • The NRC aims to distinguish between legitimate citizens and those who migrated from Bangladesh after March 25, 1971.
• Cut-off date: The cut-off date of March 25, 1971, aligns with the onset of the Bangladesh Liberation War, marking a crucial point in Assam’s demographic changes. This provision aimed to balance humanitarian considerations with the need to protect the interests of the local population.

Key-takeaways from SC Judgment

• Majority Opinion: The Constitution Bench ruled in favor of Section 6A. Key points from the majority opinion include:
  • Legislative Competence: The Court affirmed that Parliament had the authority to enact Section 6A, which was deemed a legislative solution to the challenges posed by illegal immigration in Assam.
  • Rationality of Assam’s Special Status: The majority found that singling out Assam was justified due to the higher percentage of migrants in its population compared to other border states like West Bengal.
  • Cut-off Date Justification: The cut-off date of March 25, 1971, was deemed rational as it coincided with significant historical events surrounding the Bangladesh war. The Court concluded that Section 6A is neither over-inclusive nor under-inclusive, serving its intended purpose.
    • The Bangladesh Liberation War, which led to the independence of Bangladesh from Pakistan, witnessed a massive influx of migrants to India. Even prior to when Bangladesh gained independence from East Pakistan in 1971, migration had started to India.
    • On March 19, 1972, Bangladesh and India entered into a treaty for friendship, cooperation and peace.
  • Cultural Rights and Fraternity: The presence of various ethnic groups does not inherently infringe upon the cultural rights protected under Article 29(1).
  • Principle of fraternity: The majority also rejected the argument that Section 6A violated the principle of fraternity outlined in the Preamble of the Constitution. The judgment held that fraternity should not be interpreted narrowly to restrict the inclusion of diverse populations.
• Dissenting Opinion: Justice JB Pardiwala presented a dissenting view, declaring Section 6A unconstitutional with prospective effect. His key arguments included:
  • Temporal Unreasonableness: While the law may have been valid at the time of enactment, it has become unreasonable over time. The lack of adequate mechanisms for detecting illegal immigrants, results in many remaining on electoral rolls without scrutiny.
  • Arbitrariness in Detection: Section 6A(3) imposed a burdensome requirement for migrants to be detected by the State, which undermined the original intent of timely identification and deportation.
  • Incentives for Undocumented Immigration: The provision inadvertently encourages undocumented immigrants to remain in Assam indefinitely, as there are no strict time limits for detection.