Recently, the Supreme Court of India upheld Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which aims to regulate citizenship and identify foreigners in Assam, rooted in the Assam Accord.

Historical Background

• In 1971, Assam faced an influx of illegal migrants from Bangladesh, primarily stemming from the Bangladesh Liberation War. This migration was a significant concern for the local population.
• In 1979, All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) spearheaded a movement demanding the detection and deportation of these migrants. 
  • AASU claimed that the presence of these migrants threatened the culture, language, and demographic integrity of the indigenous Assamese people.
• Following six years of agitation (1979-1985), the Tripartite Assam Accord(1985) was signed among the Central Government, Assam Government, and leaders of the Assam Movement.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

Key Provisions of Assam Accord

• Clause 5 of the Accord addressed the “Foreigners Issue”:
  • Base Date: January 1, 1966, was established as the cutoff for detecting and deleting foreigners from electoral rolls.
  • Citizenship Criteria:
    • Individuals who entered India before January 1, 1966, were recognized as Indian citizens.
    • Those arriving between January 1, 1966, and March 24, 1971, were granted citizenship but denied voting rights for ten years.
    • Migrants arriving after March 24, 1971, were classified as illegal immigrants with no claim to citizenship.
• In 1985, to implement the Assam Accord, Section 6A was added to the Citizenship Act of 1955. 
  • This provision has faced legal challenges in court.
• In the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019, a new group-specific provision, Section 6B, was introduced in the Citizenship Act. 

Legal Discourse on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act

1. Parliamentary Authority on Citizenship Laws

• Petitioner’s Argument: Petitioners challenging the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) argue that the legal framework for granting citizenship to migrants from Pakistan is governed by Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution. 
  • They contend that Section 6A, which deals with migrants from East Pakistan and Bangladesh, amends these provisions. 
  • Therefore, they assert that the addition of Section 6A should have necessitated a constitutional amendment, as it alters the existing legal framework.
• Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Articles 6 and 7 were intended solely to determine citizenship at the Constitution’s commencement on January 26, 1950. 
  • Section 6A, conversely, addresses individuals not covered by these constitutional provisions.
• Parliamentary Power:
  • Entry 17 of the Union List empowers Parliament to legislate on “Citizenship, naturalisation and aliens.”
  • Article 11 of the Constitution grants Parliament the authority to make provisions regarding the acquisition and termination of citizenship, affirming its jurisdiction in this domain.

Check Out UPSC NCERT Textbooks From PW Store

2. Citizenship and Cultural Rights of Assamese People

• Petitioner’s Argument: Petitioners argue that granting citizenship to migrants from Bangladesh under Section 6A violates the rights of the indigenous Assamese people to conserve their culture. 
  • They cite Article 29(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees citizens the fundamental right to preserve their distinct language, script, and culture.
  • The petitioners contend that conferring citizenship to migrants increases the Bengali population, potentially undermining the cultural identity of the Assamese community.
• Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court rejected this argument, asserting that changes in Assam’s demographics do not inherently erode the rights of the indigenous Assamese people. 
  • The Court emphasised that the presence of various ethnic groups within a state enriches India’s cultural diversity rather than diminishes it.

3. Allegations of “External Aggression”

• Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioners also contend that Section 6A facilitates “external aggression” by allowing illegal migration, which they argue contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sarbananda Sonowal vs. Union of India (2005).
  • In that case, the Court defined “illegal immigration” as falling under the scope of “external aggression.”
• Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that a law cannot be challenged for “violating” Article 355, which pertains to emergency provisions in the Constitution. 
  • The Court clarified that Section 6A does not permit “unabated migration.” 
  • Instead, it provides a “controlled and regulated” framework for immigration, which does not equate to “external aggression.”

4. Section 6A of the Citizenship Actvand the Right to Equality

• Petitioner’s Argument: Petitioners claim that Section 6A violates the Right to Equality for two primary reasons:
  • Selective Citizenship: Section 6A confers citizenship exclusively to migrants in Assam, creating a distinction that they argue is unjustified.
  • Exclusion of Other States: If the goal is to curb Bangladeshi migration, then the exclusion of other border states from similar provisions raises questions about fairness and equality in addressing migration issues across India.
• Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld Section 6A, emphasising that the scale of migration into Assam and its unique impact on the cultural and political rights of Assamese and tribal populations warranted special considerations. 
  • The Court found that the magnitude of influx in Assam is significantly higher than in other states, justifying the differentiated approach in the law.

Implications of the Verdict

• Current Citizenship Challenges: The ruling comes amidst ongoing uncertainties surrounding the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, where 1.9 million individuals remain unverified as citizens.
• Avoiding Complications: Striking down Section 6A could have intensified the challenges of citizenship verification and further complicated the legal landscape regarding citizenship in Assam.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Classes

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Section 6A reinforces the existing legal framework for citizenship in Assam. It aims to balance humanitarian considerations with the rights of local residents, addressing the complexities arising from ongoing demographic changes.

DOWNLOAD PDF