Assam Accord: SC upholds constitutional validity of Sec 6A of Citizenship Act

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has upheld the Constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955 by 4:1 majority.

Section 6A was inserted by way of an amendment in 1985 in furtherance of the Assam Accord.

Also Read: Why Himanta's enthusiasm over Land Act, Assam Accord is raising eyebrows

The Bench, comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, pronounced the judgement on Thursday (October 17) on a batch of petitions challenging Section 6A of the Act.

Justice Pardiwala gave a dissenting judgement.

The Bench heard the matter last year before reserving the judgement on December 12.

Section 6A

Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955 allows foreign migrants of Indian origin, who came to Assam after January 1, 1966, but before March 25, 1971, to seek Indian citizenship. Some indigenous groups of Assam had challenged the provision, arguing that it legalised illegal infiltration of foreign migrants from Bangladesh.

The Court had sought data from the Union Home Ministry regarding the inflow of illegal migrants to Assam and other northeastern states after March 25, 1971, and data-based disclosures on various subjects, including the grant of citizenship to immigrants over the years and workings of Foreigners Tribunals.

Legislative solution: CJI Chandrachud

In his judgement, CJI DY Chandrachud said the Assam Accord was a political solution to the problem of illegal migration and Section 6A was the legislative solution. The majority opinion held that Parliament had the legislative competence to enact the amendment, and that it was enacted to balance the humanitarian concerns with the need to protect the local population.

Also Read: SC begins hearing on Citizenship Act Sec 6A validity for Assam immigrants

The majority also 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 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.

Cut-off date is rational

The judges also ruled that the cut-off date of March 25, 1971 was rational because it was the date the Bangladesh liberation war ended. The majority was of the view that Section 6A was “neither over-inclusive nor under-inclusive”.

Also Read: Assam illegal immigrants: Section 6A Citizenship Act hearing to begin on Oct 17

CJI Chandrachud observed in his judgement that the mere presence of different ethnic groups in a State does not mean that the fundamental right to protect linguistic and cultural heritage as per Article (1) of the Constitution has been infringed. The petitioners have to prove that one ethnic group is not able to protect their own language and culture just because of the presence of another ethnic group.

Fraternity principle not violated: Justice Surya Kant

Justice Surya Kant in his judgement rejected the petitioners’ argument that Section 6A violated the principle of fraternity embodied in the Preamble to the Constitution. He observed that fraternity cannot be understood in a narrow manner to hold that one should be able to choose one’s neighbours.

Main contentions raised by petitioners

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

It violates fundamental rights as provided under Articles 14, 21, and 29.

The provision violates political rights of citizens as provided under Articles 325 and 326.

Section 6A is outside the ambit of legislative competence and it is contrary to the “cut-off line” as provided under the Constitution.

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.

Case history

The Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha, a civil society group based in Guwahati, first contested Section 6A in 2012 alleging its discriminatory, arbitrary, and unlawful nature. Subsequently, other groups also filed petitions challenging Section 6A.

Also Read: Need to decide on constitutional validity of Citizenship Act Sec 6A: SC

The case was heard by a two-judge bench in 2014, which referred the matter to a Constitution Bench, which was formed in 2017.

Due to the retirement of some of the judges, the bench was reconstituted twice after that.

The case was heard in December 2023 and the judgement was reserved.

(With agency inputs)