Section 6A of the Citizenship Act (Assam Accord)

(General Studies II – Polity Section – Indian Constitution—Historical Underpinnings, Evolution, Features, Amendments, Significant Provisions and Basic Structure; Separation of Powers between various organs Dispute Redressal Mechanisms and Institutions.)

• The recent Supreme Court ruling on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, addresses a contentious issue in Assam, dealing with citizenship criteria for migrants from what is now Bangladesh.

Background of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act –

• Section 6A: This section was introduced in 1985 as part of the Assam Accord, signed between the Indian government and Assam’s student organizations to address the influx of migrants from Bangladesh due to the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War.
• Provisions: The law provides citizenship for migrants who arrived in Assam before January 1, 1966. Those who arrived between January 1, 1966, and March 24, 1971, were given restricted citizenship rights until full citizenship after a ten-year period.
• 1971 Cut-off Date: Migrants arriving after March 25, 1971, are considered illegal and thus subject to deportation. This cut-off date is distinct from the 1948 cut-off date applicable to other parts of India, as set in Articles 6 and 7 of the Indian Constitution.

The Supreme Court’s Verdict –

The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench upheld Section 6A’s constitutionality with a 4:1 majority.

• Majority Opinion (led by Justice Surya Kant and joined by Chief Justice Chandrachud): The judgment argued that Section 6A’s distinct cut-off date for Assam does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution (equality before the law) due to Assam’s unique historical context and demographic pressures.
  • Humanitarian Grounds: Recognized the special historical migration circumstances around 1971 and the Assam Accord’s commitment to balancing the influx’s impact with humanitarian considerations.
  • Constitutional Consistency: The Court held that Section 6A aligns with Articles 6 and 7, which address citizenship for people who migrated from Pakistan. Article 11 was cited as giving Parliament broad powers to frame laws for citizenship, including special provisions for Assam.
• Dissenting Opinion (Justice Pardiwala): Argued that Section 6A has worsened demographic imbalance and cultural shifts, particularly affecting the indigenous Assamese population, and is thus unconstitutional.
  • Incentive for Illegal Migration: Highlighted that the absence of a sunset clause has contributed to continued migration, disrupting local demographics and violating constitutional principles.
  • Implementation Flaws: Criticized Section 6A’s reliance solely on government detection to enforce deportation and questioned its deviation from the broader framework of the Citizenship Act and the Constitution.

Implications and Broader Context –

• National Register of Citizens (NRC): The March 25, 1971, cut-off date for citizenship in Assam is pivotal for the NRC, which identified 19 lakh people as non-citizens in Assam’s 2019 NRC draft.
• Impact on Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019: The ruling strengthens demands from Assamese organizations to repeal the CAA, which sets December 31, 2014, as the citizenship cut-off for non-Muslim migrants from Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, diverging from Assam’s March 25, 1971 cut-off.

This Supreme Court ruling reinforces Assam’s distinct citizenship framework, recognizing the region’s unique circumstances while underscoring the need for continued judicial monitoring of deportation processes. The decision adds complexity to the ongoing discourse on citizenship and immigration in India, especially with overlapping laws like the CAA, raising essential questions on federalism, cultural preservation, and humanitarian obligations.