Section 6A of the Citizenship Act
Context:
In a 4:1 majority ruling, the Supreme Court of India’s Constitution Bench upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, in October 2024.
More on News:
- This provision establishes a unique framework for migrants from the erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) who settled in Assam, granting Indian citizenship to those who arrived before March 25, 1971.
- While the ruling aligns with the historical Assam Accord of 1985, the judgment raises significant constitutional and practical concerns that merit critical examination.
The Assam Accord is a significant Memorandum of Settlement signed on August 15, 1985, between the Government of India, the Government of Assam, and leaders of the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) and the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP). This agreement marked the conclusion of a six-year agitation that began in 1979, primarily aimed at addressing concerns over illegal immigration from Bangladesh and its impact on the political, social, and cultural landscape of Assam.
Key Takeaways from the Ruling:
- The then Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, justified Section 6A under Article 14, citing rational distinctions between Assam and other border states such as West Bengal, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram.
- He argued that the demographic impact of migration on Assam, given its smaller population and land area, was more severe.
- However, when tested against Article 29, which safeguards cultural and linguistic rights, the Court paradoxically held that the influx of migrants did not hinder the Assamese people’s ability to preserve their culture.
- This contradictory reasoning has drawn criticism for appearing to prioritise upholding the provision over evaluating its constitutional validity.
The Assam Accord and Section 6A:
Section 6A was introduced to implement the Assam Accord, which sought to address the challenges posed by migration from East Pakistan. The Accord established a timeline for granting citizenship:
- Migrants who arrived before January 1, 1966, were granted Indian citizenship.
- Those arriving between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, were eligible for citizenship after 10 years of residence.
- Migrants who entered after March 25, 1971, were deemed illegal and subject to detection and deportation.
- While this framework initially aimed to balance national integrity with the preservation of Assam’s unique cultural identity, its continued application has revealed critical flaws.
Constitutional Concerns and Flaws in Reasoning:
- Violation of Article 29: Article 29 guarantees the right of citizens to conserve their distinct culture, language, and script. The Court held that Section 6A did not violate this right, arguing that the law does not prevent Assamese people from actively conserving their culture. However, this reasoning overlooks the broader impact of unchecked migration on Assam’s linguistic and cultural identity.
- Between 1951 and 2011, the proportion of Assamese-speaking people in the state declined dramatically from 69.3% to 48.38%, while the Bengali-speaking population rose from 21.2% to 28.91%. These demographic shifts represent not mere coexistence but cultural displacement, undermining Article 29’s protective intent.
- Manifest Arbitrariness and Temporal Unreasonableness: Section 6A’s indefinite applicability highlights its temporal unreasonableness, violating the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness.
- More than four decades after the cut-off date of March 25, 1971, the law continues to allow migrants to claim citizenship, failing to address the original concerns it sought to resolve.
Operational and Practical Challenges:
- The implementation mechanism under Section 6A is another area of concern.
- It places the burden of initiating proceedings on the state, with no provision for voluntary self-identification by migrants.
- Referrals to foreigners’ tribunals for determining citizenship status lack a clear deadline, resulting in a backlog of cases that hampers effective enforcement.
- Moreover, the foreigners’ tribunals face overwhelming case volumes, with even ineligible individuals attempting to exploit Section 6A, further delaying the process and creating widespread confusion.
Impact on Assam’s Indigenous Population:
- The ruling has significant implications for Assam’s indigenous communities.
- The continued application of Section 6A has facilitated demographic changes that threaten the linguistic and cultural identity of the Assamese people.
- This erosion undermines the constitutional guarantees of Article 29, as well as the Assam Accord’s objective of preserving the state’s unique cultural heritage.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Section 6A appears to prioritise justifying the provision over addressing its constitutional and practical shortcomings. The judgment’s contradictory reasoning and neglect of critical concerns such as cultural displacement and temporal unreasonableness perpetuate outdated policies that fail to serve their intended purpose.
