New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 17), in a majority verdict of 4:1, has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, holding that Assam accord was a political solution to the issue of growing migration and 6A was the legislative solution.
A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud had earlier in December last year reserved its verdict on a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of section 6A related to the grant of Indian citizenship to illegal immigrants in Assam.
Petitioners challenged constitutional validity of Section 6A of Citizenship Act
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which provides legal status to people who migrated to India before 1966 and between 1966 and March 25, 1971 and declare all migration after 1971 as illegal. Section 6A was introduced in the Citizenship Act following Assam Accord between the student organisations of Assam and the central government to tide over the problem of migrations in the state.
The petitioners – various social and civil rights organisations in Assam – questioned the wisdom of introducing section 6A, introduced in 1985, submitting that the provision singles out Assam and the arrangement has been made only to deal with the problem in Assam when similar problems exist in neighbouring states of Tripura and West Bengal also. They had also submitted that section 6 A is not just discriminatory but has created problems in Assam following large scale influx of migrants from the neighbouring country Bangladesh.
The top court, while hearing submissions, had observed that section 6A of Citizenship Act was enacted by the parliament ‘not to grant amnesty to illegal migrants from Bangladesh but was something of a humanitarian measure’ and that the government has to be given leeway to make compromises for the well-being of the country. It had also expressed its concern over illegal migration in West Bengal, saying that West Bengal shares larger border with Bangladesh.
Justice JB Pardiwala gave a dissenting judgment
Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh and Manoj Misra held in their majority verdict that Parliament had the legislative competence to enact the provision. Justice JB Pardiwala gave a dissenting judgment to hold Section 6A as unconstitutional.
Impact of 40 lakh migrants in Assam greater than 57 lakh in West Bengal because of land area: CJI Chandrachud
CJI Chandrachud said that the Centre could have extended the application of act to other areas but it was not done because it was unique to the magnitude of Assam and magnitude of influx into Assam and effect on culture is higher in Assam. The CJI said that the impact of 40 lakh migrants in Assam is greater than 57 lakh in West Bengal because of the land area which is lesser in Assam compared to West Bengal.
Cut off date of March 25,1971 was correct: CJI Chandrachud
“Cut off date of March 25,1971 was correct. Migration from East Pakistan into Assam was greater than total migration to India post independence. It satisfies the condition of rationale yardstick. Section 6a of the Citizenship Act is neither under inclusive nor over inclusive. It is the duty of the Union to safeguard states against external aggression. Reading duty of Article 355 as a right would place emergency rights with citizens and courts which would be catastrophic. Mere presence of different ethnic groups in a state does not mean infringement of Article 29(1). Petitioner has 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,” CJI Chandrachud said.
Section 6A cannot be held to be unconstitutional only because it does not prescribe a process of registration: CJI Chandrachud
“The principle of temporal unreasonableness to a situation which has a reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Registration is not the de facto model to confer citizenship in India and section 6A of the Citizenship Act cannot be held to be unconstitutional only because it does not prescribe a process of registration. So I have also come to the conclusion that section 6A is valid,” CJI Chandrachud added.
Justice Surya Kant, reading for himself, Justice Misra and Justice Sundresh said, “We have also upheld the constitutional validity of section 6A of Citizenship Act.”
