On Thursday, the Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution bench upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, by a 4:1 majority. This provision, introduced in 1985 as part of the Assam Accord, establishes the criteria for granting citizenship to specific migrants in Assam. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, and Manoj Misra, supported the ruling, while Justice JB Pardiwala dissented.
The Assam Accord, signed in 1985 between the Indian government and representatives of the Assam Movement, aimed to address the large influx of migrants resulting from the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. Section 6A allows individuals who migrated between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, to acquire Indian citizenship under certain conditions.
The bench’s ruling followed an affidavit from the Central government, which stated it could not provide precise data on illegal migration due to the clandestine nature of such movements. The government reported that 14,346 foreign nationals were deported between 2017 and 2022, while 17,861 migrants who entered Assam during the specified period were granted citizenship under Section 6A. Additionally, 32,381 people were declared foreigners by Foreigners Tribunals during the same timeframe. The court had previously instructed the government to submit data on immigrants granted citizenship under Section 6A(2) and to outline measures to control illegal migration into Assam.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, representing the petitioners, contended that Section 6A violates the Constitution’s principles of secularism, fraternity, and brotherhood. He urged the court to mandate the government to develop a comprehensive, court-monitored policy for the settlement and rehabilitation of migrants in Assam.
Historical Context and Assam NRC
Section 6A is pivotal in the contentious citizenship debate in Assam. The Assam National Register of Citizens (NRC), aimed at identifying illegal immigrants, was first introduced after the 1951 national census. The NRC seeks to distinguish between legitimate citizens and those who migrated from Bangladesh after March 25, 1971. The final NRC draft, published in July 2018, excluded 40.07 lakh applicants from a total of 3.29 crore, leaving many in uncertainty about their citizenship status. A revised list released in August 2019 still excluded 19 lakh individuals. The Supreme Court clarified that no action would be taken based on the draft list, prolonging the debate over citizenship.
The Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha, a Guwahati-based civil society organization, challenged Section 6A in 2012, arguing it was discriminatory and arbitrary due to differing cut-off dates for regularizing illegal migrants in Assam compared to the rest of India.
Dissenting Opinion
Justice Pardiwala, in his dissenting opinion, raised concerns about the legality and fairness of Section 6A in relation to India’s constitutional principles. He emphasized the ongoing tension between humanitarian considerations and legal frameworks for citizenship, noting that the provision, while valid at enactment, may have become redundant over time. He remarked, “This also becomes a third limb of the test of manifest arbitrariness.”
Broader Implications
The court’s decision carries significant implications for the citizenship debate in Assam. The Assam Accord and Section 6A were formulated in response to the mass migration resulting from the Bangladesh Liberation War. Even before Bangladesh’s independence in 1971, Assam experienced a considerable influx of migrants, making this ruling a critical factor in the region’s ongoing citizenship discussions.
