Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of S.6A Of Citizenship Act Recognizing Assam Accord By 4:1 Majority

The Supreme Court today (October 17) upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which recognized the Assam Accord, by 4:1 majority.The 5-Judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra delivered the judgment.Justice Pardiwala gave a dissenting judgment to hold Section 6A as unconstitutional with prospective effect.CJI DY Chandrachud in his judgment said that the Assam Accord was a political solution to the problem of illegal migration and Section 6A was the legislative solution. The majority held that the Parliament had the legislative competence to enact the provision. The majority held that Section 6A was enacted to balance the humanitarian concerns with the need to protect the local population.No arbitrariness in singling out AssamThe majority also held that the singling out of Assam from other states that shared a larger border with Bangladesh was rational as the percentage of immigrants among the local population in Assam was higher there than in other border states. The impact of 40 lakh migrants in Assam is greater than the 57 lakh migrants in West Bengal because the land area in Assam is much less compared to West Bengal.The majority also held that the cut-off date of March 25, 1971, was rational, as it was the date when Pakistan started Operation Searchlight against Bangladesh movement in East Pakistan. The objective of the provision must be seen in the backdrop of the Bangladesh war. The majority was of the view that Section 6A was "neither over-inclusive nor under-inclusive."CJI Chandrachud also observed in his judgment that the mere presence of different ethnic groups in a State does not mean that the fundamental right to protect linguistic and cultural heritage as per Article 29(1) of the Constitution has been infringed. The petitioners have to prove that one ethnic group is not able to protect their own language and culture just because of the presence of another ethnic group.No basis for the argument that S.6A violates the fraternity principleJustice Surya Kant in his judgment(for himself, Justices Sundresh and Manoj Misra) rejected the petitioners' argument that Section 6A violated the principle of fraternity embodied in the Preamble to the Constitution. Justice Kant observed that fraternity cannot be understood in a narrow manner to hold that one should be able to choose one's neighbours.Justice Kant's judgment rejected the argument that the provision suffered from "manifest arbitrariness" because of the cut-off date specified.Regarding the argument of petitioners based on Article 29, Justice Kant's judgment held that they have not been able to show any impact on Assamese culture and language due to immigration. In fact, Section 6A mandates that the migrants who entered after the cut-off date should be detained and deported, the judgment noted. On the same count, the judgment rejected the argument based on infringement of Article 21. The petitioners have not been able to show a constitutionally valid impact on their culture due to the presence of any other group.Justice Kant read out the following conclusions regarding Section 6A :1. Immigrants who entered Assam before the date of January 1, 1966, are deemed to be Indian citizens.2. Immigrants who entered Assam between the dates January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, are entitled to seek Indian citizenship provided they fulfil the eligibility criteria.3. Immigrants who entered Assam on or after March 25, 1971, are declared to be illegal immigrants and are liable to be detected, detained and deported.Directions to detect illegal migrants should be enforcedJustice Kant said that the directions issued in the Sarabandana Sonowal judgment to detect and deport illegal migrants are to be implemented. The statutory machinery and Tribunals tasked with the identification of illegal migrants are inadequate and not proportionate to the requirement of giving time-bound effect to the legislative objectives of Section 6A, Foreigners Act, Foreigners Tribunals Order, Passport Act etc, Justice Kant noted. Justice Kant said that the implementation of these provisions cannot be left to the mere wish of the executive authorities and hence constant monitoring by the Supreme Court was necessary. For this purpose, the matters were directed to be placed before a bench to monitor the implementation of the directions.During the hearing, the Court had directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to furnish data regarding the inflow of illegal migrants to Assam and North Eastern states after March 25, 1971 (post the declaration of Bangladesh independence) and to provide data-based disclosures under various heads including the grant of citizenship to immigrants in different time periods, workings of the Foreigners Tribunals established etc. Justice Pardiwala's dissent Justice Pardiwala's line of reasoning was that a piece of legislation may be valid at...

Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of S.6A Of Citizenship Act Recognizing Assam Accord By 4:1 Majority

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of S.6A Of Citizenship Act Recognizing Assam Accord By 4:1 Majority

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers