©Freepik
Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Section 6A of Citizenship Act
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court on October 17 upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which recognizes the Assam Accord. The 5-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, delivered the verdict with a 4:1 majority, affirming that the provision was within the legislative competence of Parliament.
Majority Upholds Assam Accord and Legislative Intent
The majority judgment, authored by CJI Chandrachud, alongside Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, and Manoj Misra, highlighted that Section 6A was a legislative solution aimed at addressing the issue of illegal migration into Assam, as laid out by the Assam Accord. The bench emphasized that the provision sought to balance humanitarian concerns with the need to protect the local population from the pressures of immigration.
The court rationalized the decision to single out Assam over other border states, pointing to the higher percentage of immigrants among Assam’s population compared to other regions like West Bengal. The court noted that the influx of 40 lakh migrants had a greater impact on Assam’s smaller land area than the 57 lakh migrants in West Bengal.
March 25, 1971 Cut-Off Date Deemed Rational
The majority also upheld the cut-off date of March 25, 1971, as constitutionally valid. This date marked the beginning of Pakistan’s Operation Searchlight, which led to the Bangladesh Liberation War. The bench ruled that this historical context justified the provision, viewing it as neither “over-inclusive nor under-inclusive.”
Dissenting Opinion and Concerns
Justice JB Pardiwala delivered the lone dissent, declaring Section 6A unconstitutional but only with prospective effect. Despite the dissent, the court’s majority decision reinforced the significance of the Assam Accord as a political and legislative solution to Assam’s immigration challenges.
Ethnic and Cultural Rights Under Article 29(1)
CJI Chandrachud further observed that the presence of different ethnic groups in Assam does not, in itself, infringe upon the fundamental right to protect linguistic and cultural heritage under Article 29(1) of the Constitution. The petitioners were required to demonstrate that one ethnic group’s language and culture were unable to survive due to the presence of others, a claim that was not sufficiently proven.
This verdict brings clarity to the contentious issue of migration in Assam and reinforces the legality of Section 6A, ensuring that the Assam Accord continues to serve as a framework for addressing immigration concerns in the region.
