A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court has given this verdict by a majority of 4:1. The court has upheld the validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. A large number of people from Bangladesh live in Assam.
In an important landmark decision, the Supreme Court has held Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which provides for granting citizenship to migrants from Bangladesh in Assam, valid and constitutional. A five-judge Constitution bench has given this verdict by a majority of 4:1. The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
Section 6A, which was included in the Citizenship Act 1955 after the signing of the Assam Accord of 1985. Explains the special provision of this law and its possible effects. During the hearing, CJI DY Chandrachud said that 6A grants citizenship to those who do not fall under constitutional provisions and do not fall under concrete provisions.
What is Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955?
Section 6A was included in the Citizenship Act as a special provision to deal with the citizenship of people covered under the Assam Accord of 1985. It was signed by the then Rajiv Gandhi government with the All Assam Students Union (AASU), which was then led by Prafulla Kumar Mahanta. Prafulla Kumar Mahanta also later became the Chief Minister of Assam twice.
This law is referred to as the special provision regarding the citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord. As per the provision, people who came to Assam from various areas including Bangladesh on or after January 1, 1966, before March 25, 1971, have been residents of Assam since then. They will now have to register themselves under Section 18 for citizenship.
As per the provision of the Assam Accord, these people were barred from registering as citizens of India for 10 years from the day of their detection. According to the Assam Accord, those who came after March 25, 1971, were to be deported from India. Section 6A then set March 25, 1971 as the cut-off date for granting citizenship to migrants, especially those from Bangladesh, living in Assam.
Why was the validity of Section 6A challenged in the Supreme Court?
The Assam Samyukta Mahasangh and several other petitioners challenged the provision, saying it alienates Assam and promotes large-scale immigration. They claimed that the granting of citizenship to immigrants who claimed to have entered Assam before March 25, 1971, has led to a massive change in the demography of Assam. They wanted 1951 as the cut-off year for identifying and expelling illegal immigrants from Assam.
The petitioners had first challenged Section 6A in 2012, arguing that Section 6A was discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal as it provided different cut-off dates for regularising illegal migrants entering Assam and the rest of India.
What did the Supreme Court say?
On Thursday, the Supreme Court in a majority verdict upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud himself upheld the constitutional validity of 6A and said that the volume of influx of migrants in Assam was higher than other states as the land size is small and identification of foreigners is a complex process. Apart from this, Justice Surya Kant, Justice MM Sundresh and Manoj Mishra agreed with the CJI. All these judges said that Parliament has the legislative competence to enact such a provision.
Judge JB Pardiwala expressed disagreement
The majority verdict in the Supreme Court said that the cut-off date of March 25, 1971 for entering Assam and granting citizenship was correct. However, Judge JB Pardiwala disagreed and termed Section 6A unconstitutional. He said that the open nature of Section 6A has become more prone to misuse due to the advent of fake documents.
Mixed reactions to the verdict
The All Assam Students Union (AASU), which led a six-year-long movement against illegal immigrants in Assam between 1979 and 1985, welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision. The influential student organization said that the Supreme Court has given its approval to the Assam Accord. Under this, all those who have entered Assam illegally should be traced and deported.
However, former AASU leader Matiur Rahman who had filed the original petition in the Supreme Court on behalf of Assam-based organisation Sammilita Mahasabha challenging the inclusion of Section 6A in the Citizenship Act, said he did not expect such a verdict. He termed the decision as unfortunate and said it would make the state a dumping ground for foreigners.
What is the government’s stand?
Acknowledging the petitioner’s concerns over the burden on resources, job opportunities and demographic changes due to the influx of immigrants in Assam, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, had said that Section 6A is limited to a particular period and declaring it unconstitutional would not solve the problem. Tushar Mehta expressed concern over the negative consequences of the ever-increasing immigrants on the people of Assam. He also said that this is a serious problem.
India-Bangladesh border with Assam is 267 km
India shares a 4,096 km long border with Bangladesh, of which 267 km falls in Assam. During and after the Bangladesh Liberation War, which led to the independence of the neighbouring country in 1971, India has seen a rapid influx of immigrants. Even before the independence of Bangladesh, outsiders started coming to India, including Assam. The natives of Assam have been protesting against this illegal immigration for a long time.
