On 17th October,2024, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Amended Citizenship Act, 1955,which granted Indian citizenship in furtherance of the Assam Accord, 1985.

The Constitution Bench comprising of Chief Justice of India Dr. DY Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant, Justice M M Sundresh, Justice J B Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra delivered the judgment in the ratio 4:1, with Justice Pardiwala giving a dissenting judgment to hold Section 6A as unconstitutional with prospective effect.

Section 6A is a unique provision added to the 1955 Act to support a Memorandum of Settlement known as the ‘Assam Accord,’ which was signed on August 15, 1985, by the Rajiv Gandhi government and leaders of the Assam Movement. The purpose of the Accord was to preserve and protect Assamese culture, heritage, language, and social identity. It was established following a six-year-long agitation led by the All Assam Students Union (AASU) aimed at identifying and deporting illegal immigrants, primarily from neighboring Bangladesh, from the state.

CJI Chandrachud said, “Section 6A balances humanitarian need of migration with the economic effects of migration. It does not violate Section 6 of the Citizenship Act and confers citizenship only on a later date, between January 26, 1950 till January 1, 1961. The cut-off date of 1971 is reasonable. Section 6A is neither under inclusive nor over inclusive. The presence of different ethnic groups in a State does not violate cultural rights. Detection of foreigners is an elaborate process.”

Key Contentions of The Petitioners:

1. Section 6A violates the essential fabric of the Constitution as provided under Preamble, namely, fraternity, citizenship, unity, and integrity of India.

2. Section 6A violates fundamental rights as provided under Articles 14, 21, and 29.

3. Section 6A violates political rights of citizens as provided under Articles 325 and 326.

4. The provision is outside the ambit of legislative competence and it is contrary to the "cut off line" as provided under the Constitution.

5. The provision undermines the overarching principles of democracy, federalism, and rule of law which are a part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.

The Petitioner’s prayed to:

1. Declare that Section 6A is unconstitutional for being violative of Article 14, 21, and 29;

2. Declare Rule 4A of the 2003 Rules as well as the notification dated 5 December 2013 as ultra vires of Section 6A;

3. In the alternative, issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ to order/direct the Union of India to frame a policy in consultation with States and Union Territories (UTs) for settlement and rehabilitation of immigrants who came to Assam after 6 January 1951 across all States and UTs of India proportionally;

4. Direct the Union to complete fencing of the border and take steps for the process of identification, detection, and deportation of foreigners from the State of Assam;

5. Direct the Union to take steps to remove encroachers from protected tribal lands created under Assam Lands and Revenue Regulations.

Deliberating on the key contention raised one of which was why specifically only Assam when there are other states as well that share boundaries with Bangladesh. The four consenting judges held that the singling out of Assam from other states that shared a larger border with Bangladesh was rational as the percentage of immigrants among the local population in Assam was higher there than in other border states. The impact of 40 lakh migrants in Assam is greater than the 57 lakh migrants in West Bengal because the land area in Assam is much less compared to West Bengal.

The consenting judges also determined that the cut-off date of immigrants entering Assam of March 25, 1971, was reasonable, as it marked the conclusion of the Bangladesh liberation war and the purpose of this provision should be understood in the context of the Bangladesh war,stated the judges.

In his judgment, Chief Justice Chandrachud noted that the mere presence of various ethnic groups within a state does not imply a violation of the fundamental right to safeguard linguistic and cultural heritage under Article 29(1) of the Constitution. He emphasized that the petitioners must demonstrate that one ethnic group cannot preserve its language and culture solely due to the presence of another ethnic group.

Justice Surya Kant, in his judgment along with other concurring judges Justice Sundresh and Justice Manoj Misra, dismissed the petitioners' claim that Section 6A infringed upon the principle of fraternity outlined in the Preamble of the Constitution. He noted that fraternity should not be interpreted narrowly to suggest that individuals have the right to select their neighbors.

To summarize, he said,

- Immigrants who entered Assam before January 1, 1966 are deemed to be Indian citizens.

- Immigrants who entered Assam between January 1, 1966 and March 25, 1971 can seek citizenship, subject to eligibility conditions prescribed under Section 6A.

- Immigrants who entered Assam on after March 25, 1971 are not entitled to protection under Section 6A and consequently, they are declared illegal immigrants.

Justice Pardiwala's dissent reasoned that that a piece of legislation may be valid at the time of enactment but by afflux of time, it has become temporarily flawed.

Justice Pardiwala opined that the cut-off date of 01.01.1966 was set to assuage the apprehensions of the protesters. The legislature could have simply conferred deemed citizenship to anyone who entered before 1971. But the very fact that a statutory category was created from 1966 to 1971 subject to a stricter condition (no voting rights for 10 years) would mean that conferment of citizenship was not the only objective and it was in fact to pacify the Assam people that such inclusion would not impact the then upcoming elections in the state.

Section 6A has acquired unconstitutionality with the afflux of time. Reasoning thus, he therefore declared Section 6A as unconstitutional with prospective effect.

It is also to be noted that the verdict will also have a major impact on the Assam National Register of Citizens (NRC) list of 2019.

Case Title: In Re: Section 6A Citizenship Act 1955