In a landmark ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act of 1955, recognizing the Assam Accord. The judgment was delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench, comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra. Notably, Justice Pardiwala dissented, deeming Section 6A unconstitutional.
CJI DY Chandrachud articulated that the Assam Accord serves as a political solution to the issue of illegal migration, while Section 6A represents the legislative response. The majority opinion affirmed that Parliament possesses the legislative competence to enact this provision, aimed at balancing humanitarian concerns with the imperative to protect the local populace.
The bench further reasoned that singling out Assam for special treatment is rational, as the proportion of immigrants relative to the local population is significantly higher there than in other border states. Citing statistical evidence, the majority highlighted that the impact of 40 lakh migrants in Assam is more pronounced than that of 57 lakh migrants in West Bengal, attributing this to Assam's smaller land area.
Moreover, the Court upheld March 25, 1971, as a valid cut-off date for citizenship claims, stating that this date coincided with the conclusion of the Bangladesh liberation war. The majority concluded that Section 6A is "neither over-inclusive nor under-inclusive," thereby reinforcing its constitutionality.
In his judgment, CJI Chandrachud emphasized that the mere presence of various ethnic groups in a state does not infringe upon the fundamental right to protect linguistic and cultural heritage, as per Article 29(1) of the Constitution. Petitioners are required to demonstrate that one ethnic group is unable to safeguard its language and culture solely due to the presence of another group.
Justice Surya Kant dismissed the petitioners' claims that Section 6A violates the fraternity principle outlined in the Constitution's Preamble. He clarified that fraternity should not be narrowly interpreted to imply that individuals have the right to select their neighbors.
During the proceedings, the Court mandated the Ministry of Home Affairs to provide data on the inflow of illegal migrants to Assam and other Northeastern states following March 25, 1971. This data includes statistics on citizenship grants and the operations of Foreigners Tribunals.
Section 6A permits foreign migrants of Indian origin who entered Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, to apply for Indian citizenship. This provision was introduced in 1985, following the Assam Accord, which sought to address the concerns of leaders involved in the Assam movement against illegal migrants from Bangladesh.
Opposition to Section 6A has emerged from various indigenous groups in Assam, who argue that it legitimizes the illegal infiltration of Bangladeshi migrants.
Section 6A breaches the Constitution's foundational principles, including fraternity, citizenship, unity, and integrity.
It violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21, and 29.
The provision infringes upon political rights guaranteed by Articles 325 and 326.
Critics contend it exceeds legislative competence and contradicts constitutional boundaries.
They assert it undermines the principles of democracy, federalism, and the rule of law, which constitute the basic structure of the Constitution.
The petitioners sought to declare Section 6A unconstitutional, alongside other specific demands aimed at addressing immigration issues in Assam.
The Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha, a civil society organization, first challenged Section 6A in 2012, citing its discriminatory nature. They contended that the disparate cutoff dates for regularizing illegal migrants in Assam versus the rest of India were unjust.
In 2014, a two-judge bench referred the matter to a Constitution Bench, which was established on April 19, 2017. The bench has undergone several reconstitutions due to retirements, ultimately culminating in the current composition. The case hearings commenced on December 5 and concluded on December 12, 2023, with the judgment reserved until today.