SC ruling on Section 6A of citizenship act- Explained Pointwise

The Supreme Court (SC) of India has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act in a 4-1 verdict. SC has upheld the process for granting citizenship to migrants who entered Assam before March 24, 1971. This verdict resolves a long-standing debate on the status of foreigners in Assam. The issue has historically sparked agitation and violence, especially during the Assam Movement in the 1970s and 1980s. This ruling not only impacts Assam but also addresses broader questions related to citizenship and Parliament’s authority in the matters of citizenship.

What is Assam Accord and Section 6A of the Citizenship Act?

The majority judges, which includes Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices Surya Kant, M.M. Sundresh, and Manoj Misra, upheld Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Justice J.B. Pardiwala dissented in the verdict.

What were the arguments against Section 6A of the Citizenship Act?

1. Violation of the citizenship provisions- Petitioners argued that Section 6A was violative of the constitutional provisions on citizenship provided by Article 6 and 7 of the Constitution, which govern citizenship for those who migrated from Pakistan.

2. Violation of Right to Equality- Petitioners contended that Section 6A violated the Right to Equality by granting citizenship only to migrants in Assam while excluding other border states.

3. Arbitrary cut-off date- The critics held that the cut-off date of March 24, 1971 for providing citizenship was arbitrary.

4. Violation of the right of Cultural preservation- The petitioners argued that granting citizenship to migrants violated the rights of Assamese people under Article 29(1) of the Constitution, which protects the right to conserve their distinct culture.

5. Facilitation of external aggression- The petitioners also argued that Section 6A facilitated “external aggression” by allowing illegal immigration, citing the court’s previous ruling in Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union of India (2005).

6. Violation of national fraternity- Petitioners argued that India’s Constitution supports national fraternity instead of global fraternity.

What is the Supreme Court Verdict in upholding Section 6A of the Citizenship Act?

1. Section 6A in-violative of Article 6 and 7- SC held that Articles 6 and 7 applied only to citizenship at the time of the Constitution’s commencement in 1950, whereas Section 6A dealt with later migrants. SC also held that Section 6A aligned with the intent behind Articles 6 and 7, which aimed to protect the rights of Partition-affected migrants.

2. Section 6A in-violative of Right to equality- SC has held that Assam’s unique demographic and political situation, including the Assam Movement, justified separate treatment in the form of Section 6-A. The court emphasized that the migrant influx had a greater impact on Assam’s smaller population and cultural fabric than in other states.

3. Endorsement of the Cut-off Date of March 24, 1971- The court held that the cut-off date, aligned with the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act of 1983 and, marked the day Pakistan’s military began Operation Searchlight, targeting the nationalist movement in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). SC held that the migrants who arrived before this operation were considered part of the Partition-era migration, which India had previously handled with a liberal policy.

4. Section 6-A in violative of the right of Cultural Preservation- SC has held that changes in demography do not automatically infringe upon cultural rights.

5. Section 6-A is in alignment with India’s fraternity goals- SC rejected the petitioners restricted view of fraternity. SC has held that fraternity in the Indian context is more broad based and inclusive, and is aligned with social justice goals.

6. Section 6-A does not amount to external aggression- SC held that Section 6A offers a ‘controlled and regulated‘ approach to migration, and does not amount to external aggression.

What is the Significance of the SC Verdict?

1. First comprehensive judicial examination of citizenship- The SC verdict on the constitutionality of section 6A the first comprehensive judicial examination of citizenship under the Indian Constitution.

2. Liberal and broad view of citizenship- The Supreme court has rejected the narrow interpretation of citizenship based on cultural exclusivity. The verdict has, reinforced that citizenship is a broad, plural concept.

3. Right of culture conservation must be viewed in the framework of multiculturalism- The constitutional right to conserve culture must be interpreted within the framework of India’s multiculturalism.

4. Upholds Parliament’s Authority Over Citizenship Laws- SC has upheld the Parliament’s authority under Entry 17 of the Union List and Article 11, which grants it broad powers to make laws related to citizenship.

What are the concerns that remain with Section 6A?

1. Ineffective implementation- SC has acknowledged that the intention of Section 6A to restrict illegal immigration after 1971 has not been effectively implemented. This has led to potential injustices.

2. Clash of Section 6A with section 6B- The CAA introduces Section 6B in the citizenship Act, which provides citizenship to non-Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh who entered India before December 31, 2014. Section 6B cut-off date could clash with the March 25, 1971 cut-off date in Assam, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Section 6-A verdict.

3. Lack of proper citizenship granting mechanism- There are concerns due to the lack of proper citizenship granting mechanism to those who migrated between January 1, 1966, and March 24, 1971.

4. Ineffectiveness of Section 6A- Section 6A has become ineffective over time due to the absence of a fixed timeframe for identifying and removing migrants from electoral rolls.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling upholds the 1971 cut-off date for citizenship in Assam and emphasizes an inclusive interpretation of citizenship based on fraternity and plurality. However, the decision also leaves unresolved issues regarding the treatment of post-1971 migrants and how this will interact with the CAA’s provisions. These questions will likely shape future legal and political debates on citizenship in India.