What is Section 6A of the Citizenship Act?

Supreme Court Upholds Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955

• The Supreme Court upheld Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which allowed migrants from East Pakistan to obtain Indian citizenship in Assam before March 25, 1971.

• The decision was made by a 4:1 majority, with Justice Surya Kant authored the lead majority opinion.

• Section 6A was established from the “Assam Accord,” a political settlement signed in 1985.

• The provision established a framework for granting or denying Indian citizenship to migrants in Assam based on a cut-off date – March 25, 1971.

• The provision also conferred Indian citizenship to migrants of “Indian origin” who entered Assam before January 1, 1966, and had been “ordinarily resident” in the State since then.

• The provision was challenged as discriminatory and violated the right to equality enshrined in Article 14.

• The majority ruled that the provision does not violate the equality clause under Article 14, as it represents Parliament’s careful balancing act between its humanitarian approach towards Bangladeshi immigrants and the strain their mass exodus has imposed on Assam’s economic and cultural resources.

Section 6A in Assam’s Constitutional Framework

• The majority ruled that Section 6A aligns with Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution, granting citizenship to Indians migrating from Pakistan due to political disturbances in a foreign territory.

• Justice Kant agreed, stating that Section 6A aligns with the constitutional philosophy of Articles 6 and 7 and grants Parliament flexibility in formulating laws related to citizenship.

• The judges adopted a multicultural and pluralistic interpretation of Article 29, observing that Section 6A does not violate the cultural rights of the “indigenous” Assamese people.

• Justice Kant urged the Chief Justice to establish a Bench to monitor the identification, detection, and deportation of illegal immigrants in the State.

• The judges found no breach of the Union’s duty under Article 355, stating that “external aggression” referred to military actions and did not cover humanitarian migration driven by economic or other distress.

• Justice Pardiwala dissented, declaring Section 6A unconstitutional, effective only from the judgment date, and arguing that it does not allow for self-declaration or voluntary identification as a foreigner, marking a departure from the scheme of the Citizenship Act and Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution.

• The ruling bolsters the demand of Assamese organizations to repeal the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA), which sets December 31, 2014, as the cut-off date for granting citizenship to non-Muslim migrants who illegally entered India from Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.