'Singling Out Assam Rational; Cut-Off Date Not Arbitrary' : Supreme Court Holds S.6A Citizenship Act Doesn't Violate Article 14

While upholding the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which recognized the Assam Accord, the majority judgment authored by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant (for Justices M.M. Sundresh, Manoj Misra and himself) has held that Section 6A did not violate Article 14. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, who lone dissented, has held otherwise. As per the brief background, Section 6A, added through Citizenship Amendment Act, 1985, conferred citizenship to those who migrated from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) to Assam from January 1, 1966, until 24 March 1971 upon completion of ten years from the date of detection as a foreigner.The petitioners had contended that Section 6A was violative of Article 14 because the issue of "illegal immigration" was also prevalent in other States and selective application of Section 6A solely to the State of Assam exhibits hostility against it in comparison to other States and has detrimentally affected the natural resources and Indigenous population of Assam.Migrants before Pakistan's Searchlight Operation were migrants of Indian Partition: CJICJI applied the old test of 'reasonable classification text' to Section 6A and held that the legislative objective of Section 6A was to balance the "humanitarian needs of migrants of Indian Origin" and the "impact of the migration on the economic and cultural needs of Indian States". Therefore, the migration to Assam and the cut-off date of March 24, 1971, prescribed under Section 6A are reasonable. It reasoned that although other States share a greater border with Bangladesh, the "impact of migration in terms of numbers and resources is greater".He said: "Though other states such as West Bengal (2216.7 km), Meghalaya (443 km), Tripura (856 km) and Mizoram (318 km) share a larger border with Bangladesh as compared to Assam (263 km), the magnitude of influx to Assam and its impact on the cultural and political rights of the Assamese and Tribal populations is higher. The data submitted by the petitioners indicates that the total number of immigrants in Assam is approximately forty Lakhs, fifty seven Lakhs in West Bengal, thirty thousand in Meghalaya and three Lakh and twenty five thousand in Tripura.129 The impact of forty lakh migrants in Assam may conceivably be greater than the impact of fifty seven lakh migrants in West Bengal because of Assam's lesser population and land area compared to West Bengal."CJI also stated that the cut-off made of March 24, 1971 is also reasonable because the "Pakistani Army launched Operation Searchlight to curb the Bangladeshi nationalist movement in East Pakistan on 26 March 1971". Therefore, migrants before the operation were considered migrants of the "Indian Partition".He stated: "Similarly, the cut-off date of 25 March 1971 is also rational. Even before the enactment of Section 6A, the IMDT Act defined an 'illegal immigrant' as a person who entered India on or after 25 March 1971 without travel documents. As noted above, the IMDT Act was not specific in its application to Assam. The enactment defined the phrase illegal immigrant for all States though the Central Government did not extend the provisions of the Act to other States. On 25 March 1971, the Pakistani Army launched Operation Search Light to curb the Bengali nationalist movement in East Pakistan. The migrants before the operation were considered to be migrants of partition towards which India had a liberal policy. Migrants from Bangladesh after the said date were considered to be migrants of war and not partition. Thus, the cut-off date of 25 March 1971 is reasonable."On whether there was a rational nexus with the object of the provision, CJI held it in the affirmative. He said: "Since the migration from East Pakistan to Assam was in great numbers after the partition of undivided India and since the migration from East Pakistan after Operation Search-Light would increase, the yardstick has nexus with the objects of reducing migration and conferring citizenship to migrants of Indian origin. Section 6A would be under-inclusive only when all those who are similarly situated with respect to the object and on the application of the rational yardstick are not included. Similarly, the provision would be over-inclusive only when those who are not similarly situated with respect to these two parameters are included. That not being the case, Section 6A is neither under-inclusive nor over-inclusive."Justices Kant, Sundresh, Misra on Article 14Justice Kant applied both the tests of Article 14: reasonable classification and manifest arbitrariness to Section 6A and held that the provision did not contravene Article 14. Like CJI, Justice Kant referred to two crucial considerations for having Section 6A: first, humanitarian concerns played a significant role in granting citizenship because it was deemed inhumane to repatriate thousands of people who had migrated during times of war. Second, considerations of...

'Singling Out Assam Rational; Cut-Off Date Not Arbitrary' : Supreme Court Holds S.6A Citizenship Act Doesn't Violate Article 14

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags