On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955—which grants citizenship to immigrants who entered Assam before January 1, 1966—is constitutional. In its judgment, the court stated, “We have affirmed the Parliament’s authority to legislate on this matter. Section 6A does not conflict with Section 9 of the Citizenship Act.”
This decision came from a five-judge constitutional bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud. The bench, in a 4:1 majority decision, reaffirmed the provision’s validity, with Justice JB Pardiwala dissenting. Other members of the bench included Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, and Manoj Misra.
Section 6A was introduced in 1985 as part of the Assam Accord, an agreement between the Indian government and leaders of the Assam movement. This provision was added as a political solution to address the influx of Bangladeshi refugees during the Bangladesh Liberation War.
It allows migrants who entered Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, to apply for Indian citizenship, while those who arrived after March 25, 1971, are not eligible for citizenship under this section.
The court’s ruling affirmed that refugees who arrived in Assam before March 25, 1971, can retain their Indian citizenship, as long as they meet the necessary conditions. The bench recognized March 25, 1971 as a reasonable cut-off date, and argued that Section 6A was neither overly inclusive nor under-inclusive in determining citizenship rights.
Justice Surya Kant emphasized that immigrants who arrived after the cut-off date cannot be granted citizenship. The court also acknowledged that the central government’s decision to restrict the implementation of Section 6A to Assam was justified due to the unique demographic and cultural challenges posed by the large-scale refugee influx.
The arrival of Bangladeshi migrants in Assam during the late 1960s and early 1970s had a profound impact on the state’s demography and culture. The Assam Accord, signed on August 15, 1985, sought to address these concerns by providing a humanitarian solution through Section 6A. However, the petitioners who challenged the section argued that it undermined the political and cultural rights of Assam’s original residents.
In response, the Chief Justice noted that Assam’s geographical and demographic limitations made it more vulnerable to the effects of immigration compared to other states. The influx of approximately 40 lakh migrants in Assam had a more significant impact than the 57 lakh migrants who entered West Bengal due to Assam’s smaller land area.
The Supreme Court upheld the central government’s position that uncontrolled immigration poses a threat to Assam’s cultural integrity. The court reiterated the government’s responsibility to prevent illegal immigration, stating that Section 6A represented a necessary measure to address the state’s unique situation.
Stay informed on all the , real-time updates, and follow all the important headlines in and on Zee News.
