What's New

On Section 6A of the Citizenship Act

Syllabus:

GS-2:

Indian Constitution, Government Policies & Interventions ,India and its Neighbourhood

Focus:

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act has garnered significant attention as it upholds a unique citizenship regime for migrants in Assam, originating from historical political agreements. This decision impacts ongoing debates around immigration, demographic changes, and the rights of indigenous populations in India.

Overview of Section 6A:

• Constitutional Validity: On October 18, the Supreme Court upheld Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which provides specific provisions for migrants from erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in Assam. The ruling was passed by a 4:1 majority, with Justice Surya Kant authoring the majority opinion.
• Historical Context: Section 6A emerged from the Assam Accord signed on August 15, 1985. This Accord followed a prolonged agitation against illegal immigration from Bangladesh. The cut-off date for citizenship under this provision is March 25, 1971, marking the onset of the Bangladesh Liberation War.
• Citizenship Framework: According to Section 6A:
  • Migrants who entered Assam before January 1, 1966, and have been residents since then are eligible for citizenship.
  • Those who arrived between January 1, 1966, and March 24, 1971, receive full citizenship rights, except voting rights for ten years.
  • Anyone who entered after March 25, 1971, is deemed a foreigner and is subject to deportation.

About National Register of Citizens (NRC) for Assam:

• Purpose: A registry to identify genuine Indian citizens in Assam.
• Government Authority: Maintained by the Government of India specifically for Assam.
• 2019 Declaration: The government announced plans to extend the NRC to all of India.
• Impact: This announcement led to widespread protests across the country, raising concerns over citizenship and identity.

About Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) of 2019:

• Overview: A law designed to expedite Indian citizenship for specific religious minorities.
• Eligible Communities: Includes Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians.
• Countries Covered: Applies to refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan.
• Controversy: The CAA has been criticised for excluding Muslims, leading to significant public unrest and debate over its implications for secularism in India.

Legal Challenges to Section 6A:

• Discrimination Claims: Petitioners, including the NGO Assam Public Works, challenged the constitutionality of Section 6A, arguing it discriminates against migrants in Assam by imposing a different cut-off date compared to the rest of the country under Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution.
• Concerns of Cultural Rights: The challengers asserted that the provision adversely impacts the demographic composition and cultural rights of the indigenous Assamese population, as guaranteed under Article 29. They claimed this constitutes both external aggression and “internal disturbance,” thus obligating the Union government to protect the State.
• Dissenting Views: Critics highlighted that Section 6A’s provisions could disrupt Assam’s demographic balance, questioning the humanitarian rationale behind a separate citizenship regime for the State.

Supreme Court’s Majority Opinion:

• Justification for Differentiated Treatment: The majority opinion upheld Section 6A, emphasising Assam’s unique historical and political context. Justices Kant and Chandrachud reasoned that the provision does not violate Article 14, as it represents a balanced approach between humanitarian considerations and the socio-economic strain on Assam.
• Compatibility with Constitutional Articles: They concluded that Section 6A does not contradict Articles 6 and 7. The Chief Justice explained that these Articles focus on different time frames for citizenship, while Section 6A specifically addresses migrants outside their scope.
• Parliamentary Flexibility: The Court affirmed that Article 11 allows Parliament considerable latitude in formulating citizenship laws, enabling it to set distinct criteria based on regional circumstances.
• Cultural Rights Interpretation: Adopting a multicultural view of Article 29, the justices maintained that the provision does not infringe upon the rights of the indigenous population, and noted that grievances stem more from inadequate enforcement of deportation measures than the provision itself.

Dissenting Opinion by Justice Pardiwala:

• Unconstitutionality of Section 6A: Justice Pardiwala dissented, labelling Section 6A unconstitutional from the date of the ruling. He argued that the provision, initially justified, has failed to curb illegal migration over time, violating constitutional principles.
• Concerns About Illegal Immigration: He pointed out the absence of a sunset clause, which encourages ongoing illegal immigration and demographic imbalance. Justice Pardiwala stressed the need for a mechanism allowing self-declaration or voluntary identification as a foreigner.
• Failure to Meet Objectives: He criticised Section 6A for impeding the effective identification of illegal immigrants and argued that it contradicts the overarching purpose of the Citizenship Act.

Implications of the Ruling:

• Impact on the National Register of Citizens: The ruling endorses the March 25, 1971, cut-off date, which is pivotal to the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The NRC, prepared in 2019, identified 19 lakh residents (5.77% of Assam’s population) as potential non-citizens, though it has not yet been implemented.
• Controversy Surrounding the Citizenship Amendment Act: This ruling supports demands from Assamese organisations to repeal the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019, which establishes a different cut-off date (December 31, 2014) for granting citizenship to non-Muslim migrants. Critics argue that the CAA creates a loophole for Bengali Hindus migrating to Assam after 1971, thus undermining the principles established by Section 6A.
• Future Legal Considerations: The Supreme Court’s ruling could set a precedent for future citizenship laws and policies, especially concerning migrants in Assam. The decision may influence how illegal migration is handled and the balance between humanitarian concerns and regional stability.

Public Reaction and Societal Impact:

• Mixed Reactions: The Supreme Court’s ruling received varied responses from different segments of society, reflecting the complexity of the issue.
• Support from Assamese Organisations: Many Assamese organisations celebrated the decision as a validation of their longstanding demands for recognition of indigenous rights.
• Concerns Over Division: Critics expressed concerns that the ruling might exacerbate divisions between communities, particularly regarding migrants and indigenous populations.

Future Legal and Policy Directions:

• Potential Legal Challenges: The ruling may inspire further legal challenges, especially from groups advocating for the rights of non-Muslim migrants affected by the CAA.
• Policy Recommendations: Experts may call for comprehensive policies to address illegal immigration while balancing humanitarian considerations and regional stability.
• Monitoring Mechanisms: There could be calls for establishing robust mechanisms for the identification and deportation of illegal immigrants to ensure adherence.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s endorsement of Section 6A signifies a delicate balance between humanitarian concerns and the protection of Assam’s demographic integrity. While the majority opinion highlights the region’s unique context, dissenting views raise critical questions about the effectiveness and implications of such provisions for future citizenship laws in India.

Source: The Hindu

Mains Practice Question:

Discuss the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, focusing on its impact on immigration policies, the rights of indigenous communities, and the potential for future legal challenges. How does this ruling align with India’s constitutional framework?