SC upholds Section 6A of Citizenship Act, balancing humanitarian concerns with indigenous rights of Assamese people
In a landmark judgement the Supreme Court of India has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. In a 4:1 majority verdict, the bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud endorsed the provisions that grant citizenship to people who migrated from Bangladesh between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971. The decision comes amidst long-standing debates over immigration in Assam. Section 6A was introduced in 1985 as part of the Assam Accord, an agreement between the Indian government and Assam’s agitating groups to address the issues arising from illegal immigration. Those who arrived after March 25, 1971, are not eligible for citizenship and are considered illegal immigrants under Indian law. The Assam Accord aimed to balance the humanitarian concerns of migrants with the socio-economic and cultural interests of the indigenous Assamese population. The cut-off date of March 25, 1971, corresponds to the beginning of ‘Operation Searchlight,’ a military crackdown by the Pakistani Army in then-East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), which triggered a significant influx of refugees into India. In the majority ruling, Chief Justice Chandrachud noted that Section 6A does not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution, which pertain to the conferring of citizenship to migrants from East and West Pakistan at the commencement of the Constitution on January 26, 1950.
The court held that the legislation sought to address specific historical and demographic realities in Assam, making the separate cut-off date for the state reasonable and justifiable. However, While upholding the constitutional validity of Section 6A, the Supreme Court expressed concerns over the inadequate implementation of immigration laws in Assam. Indeed the porous borders and incomplete fencing have allowed a continuous influx of migrants, which exacerbates demographic challenges. Besides, existing mechanisms, including the Foreigners’ Tribunals, are insufficient for effectively identifying and deporting illegal immigrants. The Supreme Court’s decision has far-reaching implications for the socio-political landscape in Assam. The ruling, while affirming the validity of Section 6A, also recognises the concerns of petitioners who argued that cultural and demographic tapestry of Assam has changed by mandating better enforcement of immigration laws. If the directives for stricter border controls and timely identification of illegal immigrants are implemented effectively, it could help address long-standing grievances regarding demographic changes in Assam. On the other hand, striking down Section 6A would have rendered many residents, who have lived in Assam for decades, effectively stateless, leading to potential humanitarian crises. The court’s ruling ensures that such individuals retain their citizenship rights, thus preventing large-scale displacements and unrest.
