Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Section 6A of Citizenship Act, Recognizing Assam Accord by 4:1 Majority

In a landmark decision today (October 17), the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which recognized the Assam Accord, by a 4:1 majority. The Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, delivered the long-awaited judgment. Justice Pardiwala dissented, holding that Section 6A was unconstitutional.

Key Judgment Highlights:

CJI Chandrachud emphasized that the Assam Accord was a political solution to illegal migration, while Section 6A provided a legislative response. The majority judgment ruled that Parliament had the competence to enact the provision, balancing humanitarian concerns with the protection of Assam’s local population.

The Court held that Assam’s singling out for specific treatment under Section 6A was rational due to its high percentage of immigrants compared to other border states like West Bengal.
The cut-off date of March 25, 1971, the start of the Bangladesh Liberation War, was deemed reasonable by the bench, given the historical context.

Justice Surya Kant, writing for Justices Sundresh and Misra, also rejected the argument that Section 6A violated the fraternity principle or posed threats to Assam’s linguistic and cultural identity. The Assamese culture, it noted, remains intact, as the petitioners failed to demonstrate its erosion due to immigration.

Justice Pardiwala’s Dissent:

Justice JB Pardiwala disagreed, asserting that Section 6A was unconstitutional. His dissent pointed to concerns regarding the provision’s fairness and its alignment with India’s constitutional principles.

Implications of Section 6A:

* Pre-1966 migrants are deemed Indian citizens.
* 1966-1971 migrants can seek citizenship if eligible.
* Post-March 25, 1971 migrants are illegal and subject to deportation.

The Court also directed the enforcement of previous guidelines regarding the detection and deportation of illegal migrants, emphasizing that the existing tribunals and authorities must speed up their work under constant Supreme Court monitoring.

Background of the Case:

The challenge to Section 6A began in 2012, spearheaded by civil society groups from Assam, alleging that the section unfairly distinguished Assam from the rest of India, legalizing illegal migration. After years of deliberation, the Constitution Bench’s ruling resolves one of Assam’s most contentious legal battles.

This decision marks a crucial turning point for immigration laws in the North-Eastern region of India, upholding the Assam Accord’s legacy while calling for stronger implementation of immigration policies.

[Source: LiveLaw]