Supreme Court Upholds Section 6A of Citizenship Act as Valid Law

Relevance: GS 2 – Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors and issues arising out of their design and implementation.

Why in the news?

  • A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in a 4:1 majority judgement, upheld the constitutionality of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
  • Section 6A allows immigrants from Bangladesh residing in Assam to obtain Indian citizenship.
  • This provision stems from the Assam Accord of 1985, a political agreement aimed at resolving issues related to immigration in Assam.
  • The court ruled that citizenship could not be granted to those who entered Assam after March 25, 1971.
  • The judgment aligns Section 6A with the Preambular value of fraternity in the Indian Constitution, affirming its validity.

Background of the Court Proceedings

  • Petitioners: The court was reviewing petitions from NGOs, including Assam Public Works and Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha.
  • Concerns raised: These NGOs condemned Section 6A for contributing to a significant influx of illegal immigration, which they argued was straining Assam’s economic and developmental goals and leading to demographic changes.
  • Threat to rights: The NGOs claimed that Section 6A posed a threat to the Assamese people’s rights to protect and preserve their political, linguistic, and cultural identity.
  • Legal challenge: They urged the Supreme Court to declare Section 6A as discriminatory, arbitrary, and illegal, arguing for its invalidation based on its impact on the local population.

Supreme Court Upholds Section 6A of Citizenship Act as Valid Law

Provisions of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955

  • Historical context: Section 6A is rooted in the Assam Accord of 1985, which aimed to provide a political solution to immigration issues in Assam.
  • Citizenship for early immigrants: Immigrants from Bangladesh who entered Assam before January 1, 1966 are deemed Indian citizens.
  • Conditional citizenship: Those who entered Assam between January 1, 1966 and March 25, 1971 can acquire citizenship, subject to fulfilling specific procedures and conditions.
  • Bar on later immigrants: Citizenship is denied to those who entered Assam after March 25, 1971.

Key Observations by Justice Surya Kant

  • Fraternity must be applied universally: It cannot be selectively applied to one group while labeling others as “illegal immigrants.”
  • Justice Kant emphasized that fraternity calls for people from diverse backgrounds to “live and let live” in harmony.
  • The court must balance conflicting interests, such as the potential disenfranchisement of millions versus preserving a community’s endogamous way of life.
  • In such dilemmas, the principles of fraternity compel the court to prioritize safeguarding people over exclusionary practices.
  • Coexistence of development and growth: Justice Kant argued that sustainable development and population growth can coexist harmoniously and are not mutually exclusive.
  • Concerns about local rights: He cautioned that endorsing the petitioners’ argument—that the influx of immigrants impinges on local rights to sustainable development—could lead to restrictions on domestic inter-State movement.
  • Nation’s capacity: Justice Kant noted that a nation can accommodate immigrants and refugees while prioritizing sustainable development and ensuring equitable allocation of resources.

Observations on the Burden of Immigration in Assam

  • Migration as a burden: Justice Surya Kant, with Justices M.M. Sundresh and Manoj Misra, acknowledged that continuous migration from Bangladesh has been a burden on Assam.
  • Not solely Section 6A’s fault: The court clarified that Section 6A cannot be solely blamed for the issue. A significant portion of the fault lies in the government’s failure to detect and deport post-1971 immigrants from Bangladesh.
  • Inadequate enforcement: The statutory machinery and Tribunals tasked with identifying illegal immigrants in Assam were deemed inadequate and disproportionate to the legislative intent of Section 6A.
  • The court noted the failure in timely implementation of laws such as:
    • Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950
    • Foreigners Act, 1946
    • Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964
    • Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920
    • Passport Act, 1967
  • Need for monitoring: Justice Kant emphasized that the enforcement of immigration and citizenship laws requires constant monitoring by the court, not just left to the discretion of authorities.
  • The Constitution Bench directed the case to the Chief Justice of India to form a Bench for monitoring the implementation of immigration laws in Assam.

Chief Justice’s Perspective on Section 6A

  • Balancing act: Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud supported Justice Kant’s view, describing Section 6A as a balancing act by Parliament, reflecting a humanitarian approach towards immigrants from Bangladesh while addressing the impact of their influx on Assam’s economic and cultural resources.
  • Reasonable cut-off date: The Chief Justice affirmed that the cut-off date of March 25, 1971, was reasonable, noting its historical context related to the Pakistani Army’s Operation Searchlight on March 26, 1971, aimed at suppressing the Bengali nationalist movement in East Pakistan.
  • Victims of partition: Immigrants who entered India before the cut-off date were seen as victims of partition, deserving of India’s liberal immigration policy, whereas those arriving after were considered refugees from the war.
  • Constitutional compliance: The majority opinion of the Bench concluded that Section 6A does not violate citizenship provisions outlined in Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution, which set a cut-off date of January 26, 1950, for conferring citizenship to migrants from East and West Pakistan. Section 6A operates under a much later time frame, thus maintaining constitutional validity.

Dissenting Opinion by Justice J.B. Pardiwala

  • Unconstitutionality of Section 6A: Justice J.B. Pardiwala expressed a lone dissenting opinion, declaring Section 6A unconstitutional but with prospective effect.
  • CJI’s perspective: Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud dismissed claims that the presence of various ethnic groups would infringe on the right to conserve the language and culture of a specific group.
  • Constitutional protection: He stated that Section 6A does not violate Article 29(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to protect the culture, language, and script of specific citizen groups. The petitioners failed to demonstrate that Section 6A infringed upon the Assamese people’s ability to protect their culture.
  • Cultural safeguards: Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized that the cultural and linguistic interests of Assam’s citizens are protected by both constitutional and statutory provisions.

Associated article

https://universalinstitutions.com/supreme-court-queries-citizenship-act-section-6a-implementation/

Source:https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/section-6a-of-citizenship-act-constitution-bench-in-majority-judgment-upholds-validity/article68763594.ece

 Mains questions

Critically analyze the Supreme Court’s ruling on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and its implications for Assam’s demographic, cultural, and economic landscape in light of the Assam Accord.