The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, a crucial rule determining Indian citizenship for illegal immigrants in Assam on Thursday. This ruling came with a majority decision of 4:1 from a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud.
Section 6A of the Citizenship Act was introduced in 1985 following the Assam Accord, a political agreement aimed at addressing the issue of illegal immigration from Bangladesh into Assam. The provision specifically barred Bangladeshi migrants who had entered India between 1966 and 1971 from acquiring Indian citizenship and voting rights.
The court’s majority opinion, delivered by Justices Surya Kant, M M Sundresh, and Manoj Misra, confirmed that Parliament had the authority to create this legislation. Chief Justice Chandrachud explained that the Assam Accord was a political solution tailored to the unique situation of illegal migration in Assam, and that it could have been extended to other regions if needed.
Chief Justice Chandrachud pointed out the significant impact of illegal migration on Assam compared to other states like West Bengal. He said, “The central government could have extended the act to other areas as well, but did not do so because it was unique to Assam. The number of migrants coming to Assam and their impact on culture etc. is higher in Assam.” He further noted that the population of 40 lakh migrants in Assam had a more pronounced effect than the 57 lakh migrants in West Bengal due to Assam’s smaller land area.
However, Justice JB Pardiwala dissented from the majority view, arguing that Section 6A was unconstitutional. He did not agree with the decision to uphold this provision, providing a contrasting opinion within the bench.
The ruling has significant implications for the citizenship process in Assam. It reinforces the unique legal and political circumstances that shaped the Assam Accord, allowing the government to maintain distinct citizenship rules for illegal immigrants in the state.
The court’s decision highlights the complex relationship between law, politics, and migration in India, particularly in border states like Assam where immigration has had lasting cultural and social impacts.
