Supreme Court Upholds Section 6A of Citizenship Act: Assam Accord's Special Provisions for Citizenship Remain Valid

The Supreme Court has given its verdict on the validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. The court has upheld the validity of Section 6A. CJI DY Chandrachud said that 6A provides citizenship to those who do not fall under constitutional provisions and do not fall under concrete provisions.

The Supreme Court has asked the Central and State Governments to effectively implement the instructions regarding NRC in the then Sarbananda Sonowal government in Assam for the identification, detection, and deportation of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. The Supreme Court will now monitor this identification and deportation process.

Section 6A of the Citizenship Act was added after amendment in 1985 to further the Assam Accord. Section 6A was added to the Citizenship Act as a special provision for the citizenship of people coming to India under the Assam Accord. This section states that those who have come to Assam in 1985 from areas including Bangladesh on or after 1 January 1966 but before 25 March 1971 and have been living there since then, will have to register themselves under Section 18 to obtain Indian citizenship. This provision fixed March 25, 1971, as the last date for granting citizenship to Bangladeshi migrants in Assam.

Earlier in December 2023, the central government had filed affidavits in the Supreme Court and said that it would not be able to give accurate data about the extent of illegal migration to India as migrants have come surreptitiously.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court said in the verdict, that 6A grants citizenship to those who migrated after July 1949 but did not apply for citizenship. The Supreme Court further said, S6A grants citizenship to those who migrated before January 1, 1966. Thus, it provides citizenship to those who do not fall under Articles 6 and 7.

The SC on Thursday upheld the validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955 and gave the verdict by a majority of 4:1. Justice J Pardiwala dissented. Justice Pardiwala said that it is unconstitutional with prospective effect.

CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Suryakant, MM Sundaresh and Manoj Mishra were in the majority. Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955 was challenged in the Supreme Court. These petitions were heard by a five-judge Constitution Bench of the SC and the verdict was given.

The court said that there are 40 lakh migrants in Assam and 56 lakh migrants in West Bengal. But its impact is more in Assam. Therefore, separating Assam is valid. The cutoff date of 1971 is based on rational consideration. Migration from East Pakistan has increased after Operation Searchlight.

The court said the purpose of 6A (3) is to provide a long-term solution. The Assam Accord was to weaken the rights of the residents there. The purpose of the provision should be understood in the context of Indian policy after the Bangladesh and Assam Accords. Removing it would ignore the real reasons. The registration system is not necessary for granting citizenship in India. S 6A cannot be termed invalid just because it does not comply with the registration system. The Supreme Court said that Parliament is competent to set different conditions to determine the conditions for subsequent citizenship.

The petitioner argues that 6A is unconstitutional because it sets different dates for citizenship than Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution. Parliament's ability to set different dates is in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court said every citizen must compulsorily follow the law and Constitution of India. The apparent lack of an oath of allegiance before granting citizenship is not a violation of law. The court said we are not inclined to interfere. S6A does not operate permanently. It does not grant citizenship to those who entered after 1971.

SC said Citizenship rules for migrants who came between 1 January 1966 and 24 March 1971 were made to have a harmonious role with the law. S6A allows deportation of those who enter illegally after the cut-off date. It cannot be said that immigration has affected the right to vote of the citizens of Assam. The petitioners have failed to prove a violation of any rights.

The court said S6A does not need to be understood in a restrictive way to say that any person can be traced and deported only under the Foreigners Act. We see no reason why statutory identification under IEAA cannot be used in conjunction with 6A to detect foreigners. There is no conflict between IEAA and 6A. IEAA and Section 6A can be read in harmony.