17 october 2024 : A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act on Thursday. This provision grants citizenship benefits to individuals from Bangladesh who settled in Assam between January 1966 and March 25, 1971.
The court dismissed a series of petitions challenging Section 6A as unconstitutional, asserting it violated the cultural and economic rights of Assam’s citizens and was arbitrary for singling out Assam while migrant influx also affected West Bengal and other northeastern states. The majority opinion, delivered by Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justices Surya Kant, M.M. Sundresh, and Manoj Misra, affirmed that the 1985 law was a legislative resolution of the Assam Accord, aimed at preserving Assamese culture and identity following a six-year agitation led by the All Assam Students Union against illegal immigration from Bangladesh.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala provided the dissenting view, declaring Section 6A unconstitutional but preserving citizenship rights already granted, asserting the provision lacked a control limit, leading to continued immigration after 1971.
The court noted that Parliament could legitimately single out Assam due to the significant impact of the migrant influx, which affected around 4 million people, compared to West Bengal’s 5 million despite its larger size. The court rejected the petitioners’ claims that the migrant situation constituted external aggression under Article 355, stating that such claims could lead to catastrophic consequences. It also concluded that Article 29, which safeguards cultural rights, could only be deemed violated if the petitioners proved that the presence of another group hindered the protection of their ethnic language and culture.
The ruling upheld the March 25, 1971, cut-off date as reasonable and based on rational criteria, indicating it was intended for a limited period. Immigrants who arrived from Bangladesh before this date could become citizens, while those who entered afterward would be considered illegal and subject to deportation.
Section 6A, added to the 1955 Citizenship Act on December 7, 1985, was contested by various individuals and organizations, with the first challenge occurring in 2009. Petitioners argued that it violated their rights to equality (Article 14), life (Article 21), and minority rights (Article 29) by treating Assam differently from other border states regarding the cut-off date for regularizing illegal migrants. Even Muslim organizations, like Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, criticized the provision as “anti-minority.”
The Centre opposed the petitions, arguing that Section 6A had effectively remained in force for 27 years since its enactment. During the hearings, the Centre revealed that, as of October 31, 2023, 32,381 individuals who entered during the specified period had been detected as foreigners, with 17,861 obtaining citizenship. The Centre noted that it was challenging to provide exact figures for illegal immigrants entering after the March 25, 1971, cut-off due to the clandestine nature of such entries.
Arguments against Section 6A were presented by senior advocates Shyam Divan, K.N. Chaudhary, and Vijay Hansaria, who claimed that the provision effectively amended the Constitution by changing the cut-off from January 1950 to January 1966 for migrants from Bangladesh. They contended that this shift altered Assam’s demographics and empowered migrants politically in 32 of the 126 assembly constituencies.
The Centre and Assam government defended Section 6A, stating it served its intended purpose as a response to the unique circumstances following the Assam Accord of 1985 to address violent protests in the state. They maintained that the provision reflected a legislative policy rooted in a political settlement, making it challenging to evaluate its constitutional validity judicially.
