Dipak Kurmi
(The writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com)
On October 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a pivotal ruling
by upholding the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. This provision grants citizenship to immigrants who entered Assam before January 1, 1966, and has long been a subject of controversy and legal scrutiny. The judgement comes from a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, alongside Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra. While the majority opinion supported the validity of Section 6A, Justice Pardiwala expressed a dissenting view, deeming the provision unconstitutional.
Background of the Ruling
The ruling stems from a challenge brought forth by various petitioners, including the NGO Assam Public Works and the Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha, which argued that Section 6A established a discriminatory practice by creating a different standard for citizenship in Assam compared to the rest of India. The crux of their argument was that the cut-off dates specified in Section 6A violated the fundamental right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. They contended that this provision disproportionately affected the indigenous population of Assam, altering the demographic landscape and undermining their cultural rights.
In 1985, the Assam Accord was signed to address the issue of illegal migration, particularly from Bangladesh, which had resulted in significant social and political unrest in the state. The Accord stipulated that individuals entering Assam before January 1, 1966, would be considered citizens, while those arriving after that date but before March 24, 1971, would be eligible for registration as citizens under certain conditions. Section 6A was subsequently incorporated into the Citizenship Act to formalise this arrangement.
Supreme Court’s Findings
Delivering the majority judgement, Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasised that the Assam Accord served as a political solution to the issue of illegal migration and that Section 6A provided the necessary legislative framework. The Court noted that the unique migration situation in Assam justified specific legal provisions to address it. CJI Chandrachud articulated that the mere presence of different ethnic groups in a state does not automatically infringe upon the fundamental rights of the local population to protect their linguistic and cultural heritage as per Article 29(1) of the Constitution.
The majority opinion, penned by Justice Surya Kant and joined by Justices Sundresh and Misra, highlighted that Parliament holds the power to grant citizenship under varied conditions, as long as such differentiation is reasonable. The judges concluded that the cut-off dates of January 1, 1966, and March 24, 1971, were constitutionally valid, as the provisions of Section 6A and the Citizenship Rules, 2009, provided a clear and reasonable process for citizenship determination.
Justice Pardiwala’s dissent, however, raised critical concerns about the temporal unreasonableness of Section 6A, arguing that it lacked a clear timeline for detecting foreigners and determining their citizenship status. He expressed apprehension that the provision may lead to a lack of accountability from the government in identifying immigrants, thereby undermining the objectives of the Assam Accord.
Implications of the Ruling
This ruling is expected to have significant implications for the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, which has been a contentious issue since its inception. The NRC aims to identify legitimate citizens and address the concerns surrounding illegal immigration. The Supreme Court’s judgement may provide clarity on the status of the NRC, which has faced scrutiny over its accuracy and comprehensiveness.
Abhijeet Sarma, Chairman of Assam Public Works, welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, recognising it as a historic moment in Assam’s history. However, he voiced concerns regarding the future of Assam and the reliability of the NRC. Sarma urged the Assam and Central governments to prioritise the preparation of a new NRC with 100% re-verification to ensure its accuracy and protect the demographic integrity of the state.
Arguments for and
Against Section 6A
Defending Section 6A: The Centre defended Section 6A by invoking Article 11 of the Constitution, which empowers Parliament to make provisions regarding citizenship. The government argued that the unique circumstances surrounding migration in Assam warranted special provisions. Additionally, various respondents, including NGOs, cautioned that striking down Section 6A could render numerous residents stateless, contradicting their long-held citizenship rights.
Challenging Section 6A: Conversely, the petitioners contended that the provision disproportionately impacted the indigenous population of Assam, altering the demographic balance and threatening their cultural survival. They argued that allowing a different cut-off date for Assam compared to the national standard violated the right to equality and adversely affected the socio-economic conditions of the local populace.
The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act marks a crucial moment in the ongoing discourse surrounding citizenship, migration, and cultural rights in Assam. While the ruling provides clarity on the legal standing of immigrants in the state, it also reignites discussions about the efficacy of the NRC and the long-term implications for Assam’s demographic landscape. As Assam grapples with the challenges of illegal immigration, the road ahead will require careful navigation to balance the rights of immigrants with the concerns of the indigenous population. The judgement highlights the delicate interplay between law, politics, and identity in a region marked by its unique historical and cultural context.