Alina
SC Upholds Section 6A Validity
Supreme Court Upholds Section 6A of Citizenship Act
New Delhi: In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act of 1955. This provision, which was introduced to implement the Assam Accord, has been a key element in determining citizenship status in the state of Assam. The ruling has far-reaching implications, particularly for the National Register of Citizens (NRC) process in Assam, which was carried out in 2019.
Background: Assam Accord and Section 6A
Section 6A of the Citizenship Act was inserted following the Assam Accord of 1985, an agreement between the Indian government and the leaders of the Assam Movement. This provision aimed to address issues arising from the influx of immigrants into Assam, specifically from Bangladesh. It provided a legal framework for granting citizenship to those who arrived in Assam before January 1, 1966, and were ordinarily residents.
The Section 6A of the Citizenship Act has been central to the NRC process in Assam, which sought to identify and register legitimate citizens while excluding illegal immigrants. However, the provision has faced legal challenges, with petitioners questioning its constitutional validity and the impact on the rights of indigenous communities in Assam.
Supreme Court’s Verdict: Split Decision
A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud delivered the judgment on the validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. The Bench, which included Justices Surya Kant, M.M. Sundresh, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, carefully reviewed the arguments presented by both sides before arriving at a decision. In December 2023, the Bench reserved its judgment after extensive oral hearings.
In its verdict, the majority upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, affirming that the provision aligns with the legal framework for addressing the unique issues faced by Assam due to immigration. However, in a dissenting opinion, Justice J.B. Pardiwala argued that the provision should be struck down with prospective effect, suggesting that it should no longer apply to future cases.
Government’s Role: Addressing Illegal Immigration
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court raised concerns about the effectiveness of measures taken by the Union government to control illegal immigration into Assam and other northeastern states. The Court specifically asked the government to detail the administrative actions implemented to curb the inflow of illegal immigrants, particularly in light of the Section 6A of the Citizenship Act.
The Supreme Court requested a common affidavit from the Union and Assam governments, detailing the number of Bangladeshi immigrants who had been granted citizenship under the criteria set by Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. This period covers individuals who entered Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, and were eligible for citizenship based on their continuous residency in the state.
Solicitor General’s Submission: Challenges in Data Collection
In response to the Supreme Court’s queries, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta emphasized the difficulties in tracking illegal immigrants. He noted that many immigrants enter the country covertly, making it challenging to collect precise data on their numbers. Mehta highlighted that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act served as a legal tool to address such situations, but accurate data collection remains a challenge due to the nature of clandestine migration.
The Solicitor General’s submission reflected the complexities involved in managing immigration and citizenship issues in Assam, which are deeply intertwined with the Section 6A of the Citizenship Act and the broader objectives of the Assam Accord.
Key Provisions of Section 6A
Section 6A of the Citizenship Act stipulates that individuals of Indian origin who arrived in Assam before January 1, 1966, and have lived there continuously, shall be considered Indian citizens from the date of their arrival. Additionally, those who arrived between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, were eligible for citizenship after a 10-year registration process.
This provision was crafted to balance the rights of immigrants who had settled in Assam with the concerns of the state’s indigenous population. However, critics of the Section 6A of the Citizenship Act argue that it has altered the demographic composition of Assam and undermined the cultural and political rights of native communities.
Implications of the Verdict
The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is a landmark judgment that will shape the future of citizenship and immigration policies in Assam. While the decision aligns with the legal framework established by the Assam Accord, it also highlights the need for careful management of demographic changes and community concerns in the state.
The dissenting opinion by Justice Pardiwala introduces a nuanced perspective, suggesting that the provision may need to be revisited in the future. However, for now, the majority opinion stands, ensuring that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act remains a critical element of Assam’s legal landscape.
Conclusion: A Balanced Approach to Citizenship
The Supreme Court’s judgment on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act represents a balanced approach to managing the complex issue of citizenship in Assam. By upholding the provision, the Court has reinforced the legal framework for integrating individuals who have been long-time residents of the state, while also acknowledging the need for effective border control and immigration management.
As Assam continues to grapple with the challenges of demographic shifts and cultural preservation, the Section 6A of the Citizenship Act will remain a pivotal point of reference in the broader discourse on citizenship, immigration, and national identity.
