The Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha had challenged the Section, asserting that Assam was unfairly treated compared to the rest of India.
GUWAHATI: The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, by a 4:1 majority, reinforcing the Assam Accord of 1985. A five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, delivered the ruling on Thursday, October 17. Justice Pardiwala dissented, declaring Section 6A unconstitutional.
ALSO READ: Assam Congress Accuses Police Of Bias After Alleged Attack On Nagaon Rally
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, in his judgment, emphasized that the Assam Accord was a political solution to the issue of illegal migration, and Section 6A provided a legislative remedy. The majority held that the Parliament had the authority to enact Section 6A, balancing humanitarian concerns with the need to protect Assam’s local population. The Court found it rational to single out Assam from other states with larger borders due to the higher percentage of immigrants in Assam, noting that the impact of 40 lakh migrants in Assam was more significant than that of 57 lakh migrants in West Bengal due to Assam’s smaller land area.
The Court also upheld the cut-off date of March 25, 1971, as rational, citing the end of the Bangladesh Liberation War as a key factor. The majority opinion maintained that Section 6A was “neither over-inclusive nor under-inclusive” in addressing the issue of migration. Regarding the concerns raised under Article 29(1) of the Constitution, which protects the rights of linguistic and cultural minorities, CJI Chandrachud observed that the mere presence of different ethnic groups does not infringe on the fundamental right to protect cultural heritage. Petitioners would need to prove that one ethnic group’s culture is at risk due to another.
Justice Surya Kant, speaking for Justices Sundresh and Misra, rejected the argument that Section 6A violated the principle of fraternity in the Preamble of the Constitution. He explained that fraternity cannot be interpreted narrowly, stating that people cannot choose their neighbours. Justice Kant also dismissed claims of “manifest arbitrariness” in the provision, especially regarding the cut-off date, and rejected the argument that Assamese culture and language were negatively affected by immigration. He highlighted that Section 6A mandates the detention and deportation of migrants who entered after the cut-off date.
Justice Kant outlined the key provisions of Section 6A:
1. Immigrants who entered Assam before January 1, 1966, are considered Indian citizens.
2. Those who arrived between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, may apply for citizenship if they meet the eligibility criteria.
3. Migrants who entered on or after March 25, 1971, are illegal immigrants and are subject to detection, detention, and deportation.
Justice Kant also stressed the need for improved implementation of the Sarbandana Sonowal judgment, which called for the detection and deportation of illegal immigrants. He noted that the current statutory framework and tribunals are inadequate and recommended Supreme Court monitoring to ensure time-bound implementation of these provisions.
During the hearing, the Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to provide data on the inflow of illegal migrants into Assam after March 25, 1971, including information on citizenship grants and the operations of the Foreigners Tribunals.
Section 6A, introduced following the Assam Accord, allows migrants of Indian origin who arrived in Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, to seek Indian citizenship. Indigenous groups in Assam challenged the provision, arguing it legalised illegal migration from Bangladesh. The Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha, a civil society group, led the challenge in 2012, asserting that Assam was unfairly treated compared to the rest of India.
The case was first referred to a Constitution Bench in 2014, and after multiple bench reconstitutions, hearings began in December 2023. The Supreme Court’s decision affirms the validity of Section 6A, with continuous monitoring of its implementation as directed by the Court.