A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will deliver its verdict on the validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, tomorrow.
This provision, added to the Act in December 1985, was established as part of the Assam Accord, an agreement forged between the Union government and the All Assam Students Union (AASU) alongside the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP).
The Assam Accord was a response to the agitation by AASU and AAGSP against the influx of Bangladeshi immigrants following Bangladesh’s independence from Pakistan on March 26, 1971.
To address the concerns raised by these groups, Section 6A was incorporated into the Citizenship Act, allowing the identification and expulsion of foreign immigrants who entered Assam post-25 March 1971.
Notably, this section grants citizenship to all immigrants from Bangladesh who arrived in Assam before January 1, 1966, while those who entered between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, are considered Indian citizens but without voting rights for a decade.
The provision has faced challenges from various petitioners, including the Assam Public Works President and the Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha, who argue that it disproportionately impacts Assam and facilitates mass immigration.
They contend that the demographic landscape of Assam has been drastically altered due to the immediate citizenship granted to immigrants claiming to have arrived before the March 1971 cut-off date.
Petitioners emphasize the lack of verification mechanisms to confirm the immigration status of individuals and their ancestors, asserting that this has incentivized further mass immigration.
They argue that the changing demographics threaten the local language, culture, and job opportunities for indigenous residents, referencing Article 29 of the Constitution, which aims to preserve the culture and language of communities.
Statistics highlight a stark contrast in the percentage of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants across various states, with Assam reportedly hosting 18% of such individuals, compared to West Bengal (7%), Meghalaya (1%), and Tripura (10%).
The petitioners claim this disparity violates the equal protection clause under Article 14 of the Constitution, as it seemingly targets Assam alone.
They further argue that Section 6A indirectly amends Article 6 of the Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to individuals migrating from Pakistan before July 19, 1948, contending that the introduction of a new cut-off date for citizenship undermines existing provisions.
In defense, the Union government asserts that Parliament acted within its rights under Article 11 of the Constitution, which empowers it to legislate on citizenship matters.
The government emphasizes that Section 6A was enacted with careful consideration of foreign policy and international relations, aiming to establish a law for a specific purpose.
Supporters of Section 6A, including the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind and the All Assam Minorities Students Union, argue that Assam has a long history of demographic changes and has always been a multi-linguistic and multi-cultural state.
They caution that invalidating Section 6A could render many individuals stateless, as Bangladesh has indicated it would only accept immigrants who entered after March 25, 1971.
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud remarked during the hearings that Section 6A represented a unique understanding between India and Bangladesh, allowing individuals who arrived before March 25, 1971, to be integrated into society. As over 38 years have elapsed since the provision’s inclusion, many immigrants have enjoyed citizenship for over five decades.
Should the court rule against Section 6A, those granted citizenship under this provision would be classified as foreigners and treated according to laws governing non-citizens.
Conversely, if upheld, it will be incumbent upon the Union government to address the petitioners' concerns regarding the provision's facilitation of mass immigration, potentially shaping future legislative powers related to citizenship under Article 11.
This verdict holds profound implications for the citizens of Assam, the future of the Assam Accord, and the broader national discourse on immigration and citizenship rights in India.
