Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of Section 6A of Citizenship Act, Affirms Assam Accord

In a landmark ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act of 1955, affirming the legality of the Assam Accord. The judgment was delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, with Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra. Justice Pardiwala dissented, deeming Section 6A unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized that the Assam Accord is a political response to the issue of illegal migration, while Section 6A serves as the legislative framework to address it. The majority ruling affirmed that Parliament has the authority to enact this provision, which seeks to balance humanitarian considerations with the need to protect Assam’s local population from the impact of migration.

The bench reasoned that Assam’s special treatment is justified due to the disproportionately high number of immigrants relative to the local population compared to other border states. Using statistical evidence, the majority highlighted that the presence of 40 lakh (4 million) migrants in Assam has a far more significant impact on the state than the 57 lakh (5.7 million) migrants in West Bengal, owing to Assam’s smaller land area and population density.

The Court upheld March 25, 1971, as the valid cut-off date for citizenship claims, marking the end of the Bangladesh Liberation War. The majority opinion concluded that Section 6A is “neither over-inclusive nor under-inclusive,” affirming its constitutionality.

In his judgment, CJI Chandrachud underscored that the presence of diverse ethnic groups does not infringe on the fundamental right to preserve linguistic and cultural heritage under Article 29(1) of the Constitution. He argued that petitioners must demonstrate how the presence of another group specifically prevents one ethnic community from protecting its culture.

Justice Surya Kant dismissed claims that Section 6A violates the principle of fraternity outlined in the Constitution’s Preamble. He clarified that fraternity should not be interpreted to mean individuals have a right to choose their neighbors, rejecting arguments that the provision threatened social harmony.

During the proceedings, the Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to provide data on the influx of illegal migrants to Assam and other Northeastern states post-March 25, 1971. This data will cover statistics on citizenship grants and the activities of Foreigners Tribunals in the region.

Understanding Section 6A of the Citizenship Act

Section 6A was introduced as part of the 1985 Assam Accord, a political settlement aimed at addressing concerns raised by Assamese leaders about the influx of migrants from Bangladesh. It allows foreign migrants of Indian origin who entered Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, to apply for Indian citizenship.

Opposition and Key Arguments from Petitioners

Section 6A has faced significant opposition from various indigenous groups in Assam, who argue that it legitimizes the illegal infiltration of Bangladeshi migrants. Petitioners raised the following key arguments:

• Section 6A violates the Constitution’s core principles, including fraternity, citizenship, unity, and integrity.
• It infringes upon fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality before law), 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and 29 (protection of cultural rights).
• It undermines political rights guaranteed by Articles 325 and 326, related to electoral processes.
• Critics claimed that the provision exceeded Parliament’s legislative authority and contradicted constitutional limits.
• They argued it threatened the principles of democracy, federalism, and the rule of law, considered part of the Constitution’s basic structure.

Case Background and Legal Journey

The challenge to Section 6A was first initiated by the Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha, a civil society organization, in 2012. They argued that the provision discriminated against Assam by setting different cutoff dates for the regularization of illegal migrants compared to the rest of India.

In 2014, the Supreme Court referred the matter to a Constitution Bench for further scrutiny. After several reconstitutions due to retirements, the case hearings began on December 5, 2023, and concluded by December 12, with the verdict delivered today.

This ruling is expected to have significant implications for Assam’s political and demographic landscape, as well as for India’s broader immigration policies.