Supreme Court Upholds Section 6A Citizenship Act

Context:

• A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on October 18 upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (1955 Act).
• Section 6A laid out an exclusive regime for migrants in Assam from erstwhile East Pakistan.
• Judgement by 4:1

How did this matter reach to Supreme Court?

• In Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha v. Union of India, a two-Judge Bench referred the issue of the constitutional validity of Section 6A to a Constitution Bench.
• Other Petitioners: Assam Public Works NGO

Know about Section 6A:

• It Originates from the Assam Accord, a political tripartite settlement signed on August 15, 1985, between the central government, the state government of Assam and the leaders of the Assam movement.
• It established a framework for granting or denying Indian citizenship to migrants in Assam based on a cut-off date — March 25, 1971. (This date marked the onset of genocide in East Pakistan)
• Accordingly, all those who entered the State after March 25, 1971, would be treated as foreigners and deported in accordance with law.
• The provision also conferred Indian citizenship upon migrants of “Indian origin” who entered Assam before January 1, 1966, and had been “ordinarily resident” in the State since then.
• Those who arrived between January 1, 1966, and March 24, 1971, were granted the full rights of Indian citizens, except for voting rights, which were withheld for a decade.

Issues Raised:

• Setting a different cut-off date for citizenship in Assam is discriminatory and violates the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
• Concerns were also raised about the provision’s inconsistency with Articles 6 and 7, which regulate citizenship pertaining to Partition-era migration for the rest of the country.
• Article 6 grants citizenship to individuals who migrated to India from Pakistan before July 19, 1948, provided they have resided in the country since then.
• Article 7 denies citizenship to those who moved to Pakistan after March 1, 1947, while allowing it for those who returned to India under a permit for resettlement or permanent return.

Judgement of Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court supported the differentiated treatment of Assam under Section 6A, citing the region’s unique historical and political considerations.

Also, it was not violative of Article 14 as it was a careful attempt by parliament to balance its humanitarian approach towards Bangladeshi immigrants and the economic strain their mass exodus had caused.

Section 6A is not inconsistent with Article 6 and 7 of the Indian Constitution

• Article 6 and 7 establish a cut-off date for conferring citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution— January 26, 1950.
• Section 6A specifically addresses individuals not covered by these two provisions.

On Article 11

• It grants Parliament wide ranging power including formulation of laws that may defer from those outline under Article 6 and 7.

On Article 29

• Supreme Court made a multicultural and pluralistic interpretation.
• Section 6A doesn’t violate the cultural rights of the indigenous people.
• Article 29 aims to conserve the culture of specific group but it doesn’t restrict the coexistence of other culture.

On Article 355

• Under Article 355, external aggression refers to military actions.
• It doesn’t cover within its ambit humanitarian migration driven by economic or other distress.
• So there was no breach of the unions duty under Article 355

Dissenting Opinion:

• Section 6A unconstitutional with prospective effect.
• That while the provision may have been justifiable at the time of its enactment, its failure to curb illegal migration in Assam had rendered it inconsistent with constitutional principles over time.
• Section 6A does not allow for self-declaration or voluntary identification as a foreigner thereby leaving the detection process entirely reliant on state intervention.
• This is another departure from Article 6 and 7 which allows citizenship to be acquired through registration.

Potential Implications of the Judgement:

It serves as the foundation for the contentious National Register of Citizens which was prepared in 2019 following the top court’s directives.

• Though NRC has not been implemented, it has identified 19 lakh residents (5.77% of Assam’s population) as potential non-citizens.
• Their status would be in jeopardy.
• Also strengthen the long standing demand of Assamese organization to repeal the CAA 2019 which sets December 31, 2014 as the cut-off date for granting citizenship to non-muslim migrants who illegally entered India from Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Affect India-Bangladesh relations:

By not recognizing post-1971 immigrants as Indian citizens, the judgement could lead to tensions with Bangladesh, as it may be seen as India pushing responsibility for these immigrants onto its neighbour, potentially strain