• In a 4:1 majority verdict delivered on Thursday, a five-judge Constitution bench upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which grants Indian citizenship to immigrants who came to Assam between January 1, 1966 and March 25, 1971.

• India shares a 4,096 km-long border with Bangladesh of which 267 km falls in Assam. During and after the liberation war of Bangladesh, which led to the independence of the neighbouring country in 1971, a massive influx of migrants to India was seen. Even prior to Bangladesh’s independence, migration had started to India. 

What is Section 6A of the Citizenship Act?

• Section 6A was inserted in 1985 following the Assam Accord. It created a special provision for Assam by which persons of Indian origin who came from Bangladesh before January 1, 1966, were deemed to be citizens of India as of that date. 

• The section also said that, Persons of Indian origin who entered Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, and were required to register themselves. 

• They were granted citizenship only after 10 years of residence. However, Section 6A specified a cut-off date of March 25, 1971 and said that persons entering after the cutoff date will be termed illegal immigrants. 

Why the validity of Section 6A was challenged in Supreme Court?

• The Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha and many other petitioners challenged the provision, saying that it singles out Assam and has facilitated mass immigration. 

• They claimed that Assam’s demography has changed drastically due to the citizenship being granted to immigrants who claim that they entered Assam before March 25, 1971. They wanted 1951 as the cut-off year for detection and deportation of illegal immigrants from Assam.

• The petitioners had challenged Section 6A first in 2012 while arguing that Section 6A was discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal so far as it provides for different cut-off dates for regularising illegal migrants who entered Assam and the rest of India.

Key points of the verdict:

• Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud said the magnitude of the influx of migrants in Assam was higher as compared to other states considering the smaller land size and the detection of foreigners is an elaborate process.

• Besides, Justice Surya Kant, who wrote for himself and Justices M.M. Sundresh and Manoj Misra, concurred with the CJI and held that Parliament had the legislative competence to enact such a provision. The  Parliament enacted Section 6A of the Citizenship Act under Article 246 in conjunction with Entry 17 of List I (Union List).

• Justice J.B. Pardiwala, however, dissented and held Section 6A as unconstitutional. He said the open-ended nature of Section 6A had become prone to abuse owing to forged documents.

• Article 14 (Right to Equality): The SC bench held that Assam’s special citizenship law did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution (Right to Equality). The Court reasoned that the migration situation in Assam was unique, different from the rest of India, warranting special provisions.

• Impact on Culture (Article 29): The Court found no substantial evidence that the presence of migrants negatively impacted the cultural or linguistic rights of the Assamese people, as protected under Article 29 (Protection of interests of minorities).

• Reasonable Cutoff Date: The Court deemed the cutoff date of March 25, 1971 to be reasonable. This date aligns with the events of Operation SearchLight initiated by the Pakistani Army on March 26, 1971 to suppress the Bangladeshi nationalist movement in East Pakistan.

(The author is a trainer for Civil Services aspirants.)