Section 6A of the Citizenship Act

Source: This post on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act has been craeted based on “Section 6A of the Citizenship Act — why it fails Assam” publsihed in The Hindu on 19^th December 2024.

UPSC Syllabus: GS-2-Indian Constitution—Historical Underpinnings, Evolution, Features, Amendments, Significant Provisions and Basic Structure

Context: The article critically examines the constitutional validity and implications of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, in the context of Assam.

What is Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955?

1. Section 6A, introduced in 1985 after the Assam Accord, provides a framework for granting Indian citizenship to migrants from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) who settled in Assam:
2. Before January 1, 1966: Migrants are declared Indian citizens.
3. Between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971: Migrants are eligible for citizenship after 10 years of residence.

• After March 25, 1971: Such individuals are deemed illegal migrants and liable for detection and deportation.

What is the significance of the recent Supreme Court ruling on Section 6A?

1. In October 2024, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in a 4:1 majority decision, upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A.
2. However, the ruling has been criticized for overlooking constitutional violations and relying on arbitrary reasoning.

How does the judgment justify singling out Assam?

1. The Court argued that Assam’s smaller population and land area make the influx of migrants more impactful compared to other states like West Bengal or Tripura, which share longer borders with Bangladesh.
2. However, it simultaneously concluded that the influx did not affect Assamese language, script, or culture, leading to contradictory reasoning.

Why was Section 6A introduced, and what are its implications?

1. The Assam Accord, addressing concerns over cultural preservation, economic strain, and political imbalance, led to the inclusion of Section 6A.
2. However, critics argue that the provision does not adequately safeguard Assam’s cultural identity and fails to resolve the issues it was designed to address.

What constitutional concerns arise from Section 6A?

1. Violation of Article 29 (Cultural and Linguistic Rights):
   1. Article 29 guarantees the protection of cultural and linguistic identities.
   2. The Court ruled that Section 6A does not infringe on Assamese cultural rights since it does not prevent active conservation efforts.
   3. However, critics argue that the demographic shift caused by migration undermines Assam’s cultural identity, evident in the declining percentage of Assamese-speaking people (from 69.3% in 1951 to 48.38% in 2011) and the increasing proportion of Bengali-speaking people (from 21.2% in 1951 to 28.91% in 2011).
2. Temporal Unreasonableness:
   1. Laws must remain reasonable over time, but Section 6A lacks a temporal limitation, allowing individuals to apply for citizenship indefinitely, even 40 years after the cut-off date.
3. Flawed Mechanism for Identifying Migrants:
   1. The burden of initiating proceedings lies with the state, without a mechanism for voluntary self-identification.
   2. The foreigners’ tribunal, tasked with determining citizenship, is overwhelmed by the volume of cases, causing inefficiency and confusion.

What are the challenges in implementation?

1. Communication and Training Gaps: Many farmers reported no communication or training about sustainable practices.
2. Delayed Carbon Credit Payments: 99% of farmers have not received payments for carbon credits.
3. Sustainability Challenges: 28% of farmers reverted to conventional farming due to insufficient financial incentives.
4. Demographic Shift: The increasing proportion of Bengali-speaking individuals has significantly altered Assam’s cultural and linguistic demographics.

What criticisms have been made of the Supreme Court’s ruling?

1. Contradictory Reasoning: The Court acknowledged Assam’s unique challenges but failed to recognize the cultural and linguistic displacement caused by migration.
2. Neglect of Temporal Unreasonableness: By allowing Section 6A to remain in force indefinitely, the Court upheld outdated and arbitrary policies.
3. Failure to Address Cultural Erosion: The judgment overlooks how unchecked migration has eroded Assam’s linguistic and cultural identity, violating Article 29.