GUWAHATI: In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which grants Indian citizenship to immigrants – mostly from Bangladesh – who entered Assam between January 1, 1966 and March 25, 1971.
The five-judge Constitution bench, comprising Chief Justice of India D.Y Chandrachud, Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra delivered the judgment by a 4:1 majority, recognising the Assam Accord of 1985.
However, Justice Pardiwala gave a dissenting judgment to hold Section 6A as unconstitutional with prospective effect.
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. The provision was inserted in 1985 following the Assam Accord, an agreement entered into between the Government of India and leaders of the Assam Agitation who had protested for the removal of illegal migrants who entered Assam from Bangladesh.
Notably, the cut-off date (March 25, 1971) was the date when the Bangladesh liberation war ended.
Making the judgment, CJI Chandrachud said the Assam Accord was a political solution to the problem of illegal migration and Section 6A was the legislative solution.
The majority in the five-member Constitution bench held that Parliament had the legislative competence to enact the provision and that Section 6A was enacted to balance humanitarian concerns with the need to protect the local population.
The majority also held that the singling out 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 majority observed while delivering the judgment.
The apex court also held that the cut-off date of March 25,1971 was rational, as it was the date when the Bangladesh liberation war ended. It was of the view that Section 6A was “neither over-inclusive nor under-inclusive”.
Further observing in his judgment that 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 29(1) of the Constitution had been infringed, the CJI noted: “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.
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 bench rejected the petitions questioning the constitutional validity of Section 6A.
It may be recalled that the Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha, a civil society group based in Guwahati, contested Section 6A in 2012, alleging it was discriminatory, arbitrary and unlawful. The Mahasangha argued that the provision of distinct cut-off dates for regularising illegal migrants in Assam versus the rest of India was unfair.
The Mahasangha requested the Court to intervene by instructing the relevant authority to update the National Register of Citizens (NRC) for Assam based on the information from the 1951 NRC rather than relying on electoral rolls before March 24, 1971.
Subsequently, other organisations from Assam also filed petitions challenging Section 6A.
Meanwhile, Assam Congress president Bhupen Kumar Borah welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling to uphold the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act.
“The verdict of the Supreme Court is a significant ruling in favour of the Assam Accord, which was signed in 1985 during the tenure of then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, who was a signatory to the agreement,” Borah told mediapersons.
He further recalled that the cut-off date of March 25, 1971, for granting citizenship to migrants, was a collective decision supported by various political entities, including national and regional parties at that time.
“When the Accord was inked back in 1985, it was supported by then BJP leaders, including Atal Behari Vajpayee, and other political parties, both national and regional,” the state Congress chief said.
Borah said the Congress has always supported the Assam Accord. “Our party has since the inception of the Accord respected all clauses of the Accord. This verdict of the Supreme Court in favour of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, has once again validated the cut-off date of March 25, 1971, for granting citizenship to migrants, a provision inserted in 1985 following the Assam Accord,” he said.
In the same vein, Jorhat MP and Congress leader Gaurav Gogoi took to social media to hail the ruling of the apex court.
“I respect the decision of the honourable Supreme Court to back the Assam Accord. The Assam Accord was a historic accord which brought peace to the state after years of political agitation. During that period, the Prime Minister of India late Rajiv Gandhi would engage with the student leaders despite political differences,” Gogoi stated.
All Assam Students Union adviser Samujjal Bhattacharjya also hailed the Supreme Court’s decision on Assam Accord (inked between the leaders of the Assam Agitation and then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi), while stating that post validation of the provision of Citizenship Act, the need of the hour was to implement all the clauses of the Accord, signed as many as 40 years back, in letter and spirit.
Other parties such as Aam Aadmi Party Assam, regional parties, Assam Jatiya Parishad and Raijor Dal, also welcomed the verdict of the Supreme Court.
Raijor Dal chief, while reacting to the verdict, said that the apex court’s ruling now puts to rest the debate on the cut-off date.
“We term this verdict of the Supreme Court as historic. At the same time, this validation of the special provision, also means that all illegal foreigners who entered the state after March 25, 1971, now need to be identified and deported by the government,” Rajor Dal chief Akhil Gogoi said.
Also Read | Assam: Congress demands white paper on state’s financial turmoil