Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955 by 4:1 majority.
The section 6A, which recognized the Assam Accord, allows foreign migrants of Indian origin – who came to Assam between January 1, 1966 and March 25, 1971 – to seek Indian citizenship.
Section 6A of the Citizenship Act was inserted through an amendment in 1985 in furtherance of the Assam Accord.
The five-judge Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra delivered the judgment.
Justice Pardiwala gave a dissenting judgment to hold Section 6A as unconstitutional.
CJI Chandrachud in his judgment said that the Assam Accord was a political solution to the problem of illegal migration and Section 6A was the legislative solution. The majority held that the Parliament had the legislative competence to enact the provision, he said.
The top court held that Section 6A was enacted to balance the humanitarian concerns with the need to protect the local population.
The majority also held that the ‘singling out of Assam’ from other states that shared a larger border with the Bangladesh as rational, as the number of immigrants among the local population in Assam was higher there than in other border states.
The impact of 40 lakh migrants in Assam is greater than the 57 lakh migrants in West Bengal because of the land area in Assam is much less compared to West Bengal, observed the apex court.
The majority also held that the cut-off date of March 25, 1971 was rational, as it was the date when the Bangladesh liberation war ended. The objective of the provision must be seen in the backdrop of the Bangladesh war. The majority was of the view that Section 6A was “neither over-inclusive nor under-inclusive.”
CJI Chandrachud also observed in his judgment that the mere presence of different ethnic groups in a State does not mean that the fundamental right to protect linguistic and cultural heritage as per Article 29(1) of the Constitution has been infringed. The petitioners have to prove that one ethnic group is not able to protect their own language and culture just because of the presence of another ethnic group.
ALSO READ: Assam government to revive 129 wetlands to mitigate floods
Justice Surya Kant in his judgment rejected the petitioners’ argument that Section 6A violated the principle of fraternity embodied in the Preamble to the Constitution.
Justice Kant observed that fraternity cannot be understood in a narrow manner to hold that one should be able to choose one’s neighbours.
Regarding the argument of petitioners based on Article 29, Justice Kant’s judgment held that they have not been able to show any impact on Assamese culture and language due to immigration. In fact, Section 6A mandates that the migrants who entered after the cut-off date should be detained and deported, the judgment noted.
On the same count, the judgment rejected the argument based on infringement of Article 21. The petitioners have not been able to show a constitutionally valid impact on their culture due to the presence of any other group.
