Supreme Court Ruling on Section 6A of Citizenship Act | UPSC

Introduction

• In a historic ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. This decision, made by a 4-1 majority, resolves the long-standing debate surrounding the citizenship status of migrants who entered Assam before March 24, 1971. 
• Section 6A codifies provisions of the Assam Accord of 1985, which was introduced to address the influx of migrants and define citizenship criteria for Assam.
• Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices Surya Kant, M.M. Sundresh, and Manoj Misra supported the decision, while Justice J.B. Pardiwala dissented. The ruling is significant not only for Assam but also for India as a whole, as it deals with broader questions about the nature of citizenship and the legislative power of Parliament.

What Is the Assam Accord and Section 6A of the Citizenship Act?

• The Assam Accord of 1985: The Assam Accord was an agreement between the Government of India and the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU), signed to address the growing concerns about illegal immigration into Assam. This accord set March 24, 1971, as the cut-off date for determining who qualifies for citizenship in the state. This move was aimed at protecting the local population from the effects of large-scale migration.
• Section 6A of the Citizenship Act: Introduced to give legal effect to the Assam Accord, Section 6A outlined the criteria for identifying and processing migrants:
  • Identification of Foreigners: The Act set January 1, 1966, as the base date for identifying “foreigners” whose names would be removed from electoral rolls.
  • Application  for Citizenship: Migrants who entered Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, were allowed to apply for Indian citizenship under specific conditions. 
• Section 6B and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019: The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019, added Section 6B to the Citizenship Act. This amendment introduced another category of migrants, allowing Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Parsi, Buddhist, and Jain migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan who entered India before December 31, 2014, to apply for Indian citizenship. However, this section sparked controversy due to its exclusion of Muslim migrants, raising questions about its impact in Assam where Section 6A governs citizenship based on a different cut-off date.

Read also: Understand Global Hunger Index: Tackling Hunger in India | UPSC

Key Arguments Against Section 6A

• Contradiction with Articles 6 and 7: Petitioners argued that Section 6A violates Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution, which govern citizenship for migrants from Pakistan at the time of Partition. They claimed that this section created an inconsistency in India’s citizenship laws.
• Violation of the Right to Equality: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act was criticized for offering preferential treatment to Assam over other border states, which also face similar immigration challenges. This, they claimed, violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.
• Arbitrary Cut-off Date: Petitioners argued that the March 24, 1971 cut-off date was arbitrary, as migration into Assam continued even after this date.
• Cultural Preservation: Critics argued that granting citizenship to a large number of migrants could dilute the cultural identity of the Assamese people, which is protected under Article 29(1) of the Constitution.
• External Aggression: Petitioners cited the Sarbananda Sonowal vs. Union of India (2005) case, in which illegal migration was described as a form of external aggression. They argued that Section 6A facilitated such aggression by allowing undocumented migrants to settle in Assam.
• National Fraternity: Some petitioners contended that the Constitution promotes national fraternity, and Section 6A undermined this by allowing citizenship for migrants who might affect Assam’s demographics.

Supreme Court’s Verdict on Section 6A of The Citizenship Act

• Consistency with Articles 6 and 7: The Court clarified that Articles 6 and 7 apply to citizenship during the Partition period, whereas Section 6A addresses a different phase of migration, particularly in Assam. The Court held that Section 6A aligns with the Constitution’s intent to protect migrants affected by the Partition, particularly in regions like Assam.
• Right to Equality: The Court ruled that Assam’s unique demographic and political situation, including the Assam Movement of the 1970s and 1980s, justified the special provisions under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. The influx of migrants had a profound impact on the state’s smaller population and cultural identity, unlike in other states.
• Justification of the Cut-off Date: The Court endorsed the cut-off date of March 24, 1971, which coincides with Operation Searchlight, a military crackdown in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) that triggered a massive refugee crisis. The Court viewed this date as historically significant and consistent with India’s liberal stance on Partition-era refugees.
• Cultural Preservation: The Court rejected the argument that demographic changes automatically threaten cultural preservation. It emphasized that India’s Constitution promotes multiculturalism, where diverse identities are encouraged to coexist.
• Fraternity in the Indian Context: The Court rejected the narrow view of fraternity proposed by the petitioners, stating that fraternity in India is inclusive and aligned with social justice goals.
• External Aggression: The Court dismissed the claim that Section 6A facilitates external aggression, noting that it provides a controlled and regulated process for managing migration in Assam.

Significance of the Supreme Court Verdict

• First Comprehensive Judicial Examination of Citizenship: This verdict marks the first time the Supreme Court has conducted a thorough judicial review of citizenship under the Indian Constitution. It sets an important precedent for future legal debates around citizenship, migration, and identity in India.
• Liberal and Inclusive View of Citizenship: The ruling reinforces that citizenship is a broad and inclusive concept, rejecting narrow interpretations based on cultural exclusivity.
• Multiculturalism and Cultural Conservation: The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to conserve culture must be viewed through the lens of India’s multiculturalism, where multiple identities and cultures are protected and promoted.
• Parliament’s Authority: The ruling reaffirmed the Parliament’s authority under Article 11 and Entry 17 of the Union List to make laws regarding citizenship. This reinforces the legislature’s power in shaping citizenship laws in the country.

Read also: The Gig Economy in India: Growth, Challenges & Insights | UPSC

Remaining Concerns with Section 6A

• Ineffective Implementation: The Court noted that Section 6A’s intended goal of preventing illegal immigration post-1971 has not been effectively enforced. This lack of enforcement has allowed some migrants to remain in Assam without proper identification or removal.
• Conflict with Section 6B: The CAA, 2019, introduces Section 6B, which sets a different cut-off date of December 31, 2014, for non-Muslim migrants from certain countries. This creates a potential conflict with Section 6A, which upholds March 24, 1971, as the cut-off for Assam. The clash between these two provisions could lead to future legal challenges.
• Lack of Proper Mechanism: The Court recognized that there is no clear mechanism to grant citizenship to those who migrated between January 1, 1966, and March 24, 1971. This lack of clarity could result in administrative delays and injustices.
• Section 6A’s Diminishing Effectiveness: The Court acknowledged that Section 6A has become less effective over time, largely due to the lack of a fixed timeline for identifying and removing illegal migrants from electoral rolls.

Way Forward 

• The Supreme Court’s ruling to uphold Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is a landmark moment in India’s legal history. 
• It reaffirms a broad and inclusive interpretation of citizenship, emphasizing fraternity, multiculturalism, and Parliament’s authority to legislate on citizenship. However, the decision also leaves several critical issues unresolved, particularly around the CAA and how it interacts with Section 6A’s provisions.
•  These challenges will likely shape future debates on citizenship, migration, and identity in India.