Supreme Court Upholds Assam Citizenship Law: Implications Ahead

Syllabus:

GS-2:

Indian Constitution ,Government Policies & InterventionsIndia and its Neighbourhood

Focus:

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling affirmed Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, impacting the process of granting citizenship to migrants in Assam. This decision highlights significant issues related to demographic changes, cultural rights, and the balance between immigration control and individual rights under Indian law.

Supreme Court Upholds Assam Citizenship Law: Implications Ahead

About the Supreme Court Verdict on Citizenship in Assam:

  • Judicial Context: A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which grants citizenship to migrants who entered Assam before March 24, 1971.
  • Judges’ Consensus: The ruling was backed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices Surya Kant, M.M. Sundresh, and Manoj Misra, while Justice J.B. Pardiwala dissented.
  • Historical Significance: The decision has implications beyond Assam, affecting broader issues related to citizenship and the powers of Parliament.
  • Assam Accord: The Assam Accord of 1985 established a cut-off date for recognizing foreigners and outlined citizenship provisions, which Section 6A codifies.
  • Legal Challenges: The case arose from a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 6A, focusing on citizenship rights and the power of Parliament to regulate citizenship.

Understanding the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019:

  • Objective: Amends the Citizenship Act, 1955.
  • Eligibility: Grants citizenship to six non-Muslim communities: Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians.
  • Source Countries: Applies to individuals from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh.
  • Cut-off Date: Beneficiaries must have entered India on or before December 31, 2014.
  • Legal Exemptions: Exempts these communities from criminal cases under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Passport Act, 1920.
  • Relevant Acts: The Foreigners Act and Passport Act specify penalties for illegal entry and overstaying visas.

About the Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955:

  • Purpose: Special provision for citizenship related to the Assam Accord.
  • Eligibility: Applies to individuals who entered Assam from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971.
  • Registration: These individuals can register as citizens if they have been living in Assam.
  • Cut-off Date: March 24, 1971, established as the cut-off for entry into Assam.
  • Legal Status: Detected individuals are classified as “illegal immigrants” until registration.
  • Rights: They retain rights and obligations similar to citizens, excluding electoral roll inclusion.
  • Ten-Year Rule: After ten years from detection, they are deemed
  • NRC Link: The final National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, published in 2019, used this cut-off date.

National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam:

  • Definition: A register identifying Indian citizens in Assam.
  • Objective: To distinguish between Indian nationals and foreign nationals, particularly due to proximity to Bangladesh.
  • Initiation: Process began after a Supreme Court order in 2013.
  • Criteria: Residents must prove Indian nationality before March 24, 1971.
  • Final Update: The updated NRC was released on August 31.
  • Outcome: Over 1.9 million applicants were not included in the final list.

Implications of Section 6A and Citizenship Rights:

  • Constitutional Authority: Justices emphasised that Parliament has the authority to make laws concerning citizenship, as outlined in Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution.
  • Argument Against Amendment: Petitioners contended that Section 6A amended constitutional provisions and required a formal constitutional amendment.
  • Judicial Interpretation: CJI Chandrachud clarified that Articles 6 and 7 pertain to citizenship at the Constitution’s commencement, while Section 6A addresses migrants not covered by these provisions.
  • Legal Framework: The judges referenced Entry 17 of the Union List, giving Parliament the power to legislate on matters related to citizenship and naturalisation.
  • Parliament’s Discretion: The ruling reinforces Parliament’s authority to create citizenship regulations without infringing on existing constitutional rights.

The Assam Accord and Citizenship Process

  • Background of the Assam Accord: Initiated by the Assam Students Union (AASU) in 1979, the Accord aimed to identify and deport illegal migrants, predominantly from Bangladesh.
  • Clause 5 of the Accord: Established January 1, 1966, as the base date for detecting and deleting foreigners from electoral rolls, granting citizenship to those arriving before March 24, 1971.
  • Unique State Context: The Supreme Court recognized Assam’s unique demographic challenges and the impact of migration on its cultural and political rights.
  • Comparative Analysis: The court noted that the scale of migration to Assam significantly differs from other border states, justifying Section 6A’s specific provisions.
  • Impact on Future Legislation: The ruling may influence ongoing challenges to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) of 2019, as it reaffirms Parliament’s ability to regulate citizenship.

Dissenting Opinions and Concerns:

  • Justice Pardiwala’s Dissent: Highlighted the lack of a mechanism for migrants to voluntarily submit for citizenship under Section 6A, raising concerns about the identification process.
  • Procedural Inefficacy: Dissenters argued that Section 6A has proven ineffective over time, lacking a proper timeline for identifying immigrants from the 1966-1971 period.
  • Government Responsibility: Without a structured identification process, the government is relieved of its duty to identify and remove illegal immigrants from electoral rolls.
  • Need for Timeliness: The dissent emphasised that effective citizenship removal must be carried out in a timely manner to be meaningful.
  • Legal Safeguards: Justice Pardiwala’s opinion stressed the necessity for safeguards to ensure the fair identification of eligible immigrants.

Cultural Rights and Demographic Changes:

  • Rights Under Article 29(1): The petitioners claimed that Section 6A infringes upon the rights of indigenous Assamese people to preserve their language and culture.
  • Majority Rejection of Claims: The majority opinion dismissed the argument that demographic changes due to migration erode the cultural rights of indigenous groups.
  • Fraternity and Unity: CJI Chandrachud emphasised that accepting demographic changes as erosion of rights would undermine the fraternity envisioned by the Constitution.
  • Cultural Cohesion: Justice Kant remarked that the presence of diverse ethnic groups alone does not violate cultural rights as guaranteed by Article 29(1).
  • Constitutional Vision: The ruling reaffirms the importance of cultural coexistence while protecting the rights of all citizens, regardless of demographic changes.

Challenges:

  • Political Resistance: Resistance from political groups opposing amendments to existing citizenship laws may hinder reforms.
  • Cultural Tensions: Balancing cultural rights of indigenous populations with the need for inclusivity can lead to tensions.
  • Administrative Inefficiencies: Bureaucratic challenges may obstruct timely identification and processing of citizenship applications.
  • Legal Ambiguities: Ambiguities in the law could lead to varying interpretations and implementation issues.
  • Public Sentiment: Negative public sentiment towards migrants can complicate legislative efforts aimed at reforming citizenship laws.
  • Technological Challenges: The use of technology for documentation and verification must address security concerns and privacy issues.

Way Forward:

  • Enhanced Citizenship Framework: Establish a more transparent and efficient process for granting citizenship to migrants, ensuring that it addresses the unique challenges faced by states like Assam.
  • Regular Review of Laws: Implement periodic assessments of Section 6A and related laws to adapt to changing demographic realities and ensure their effectiveness in addressing illegal immigration.
  • Public Awareness Campaigns: Increase awareness among citizens regarding their rights and the provisions under the Citizenship Act to foster understanding and compliance.
  • Strengthening Mechanisms: Develop robust mechanisms for the identification and verification of migrants to prevent misuse and safeguard against illegal immigration.
  • Inclusive Dialogue: Encourage dialogue among stakeholders, including local communities, legal experts, and policymakers, to address concerns regarding cultural preservation and migration.
  • Judicial Oversight: Maintain judicial scrutiny over the implementation of citizenship laws to ensure adherence to constitutional principles and protection of minority rights.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Section 6A underscores the delicate balance between citizenship rights and cultural preservation in Assam. Moving forward, it is crucial for the government to implement effective measures addressing immigration challenges while ensuring the rights of indigenous communities, fostering harmony, and safeguarding cultural identities.

Source: The Indian Express

Mains Practice Question:

Discuss the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act for Assam’s demographic landscape and cultural rights. How can the government address concerns regarding illegal immigration while respecting the rights of indigenous populations?

Associated Article:

https://universalinstitutions.com/assam-government-to-implement-key-accord-recommendations/