An inclusive beginning

(Source: Indian Express; Section: The Editorial Page; Page: 12)

 Landmark Examination of Citizenship

• The recent judgment delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 is significant for several reasons.
• This ruling marks the first time the Court has extensively examined the meaning of citizenship under the Indian Constitution.
• It also delves into the intersection between citizenship and the right to vote, the cultural rights of communities under Article 29 of the Constitution, and the principle of “temporal unreasonableness,” a novel concept in Indian jurisprudence.

The Assam Accord and Section 6A

• Section 6A of the Citizenship Act was introduced in 1985 to give legislative effect to the Assam Accord, a compromise between the Indian government and Assam’s protesting student groups over the issue of Bangladeshi immigration.
• The provision legalized the citizenship status of migrants who entered Assam before March 25, 1971, but those who arrived afterward were considered illegal immigrants.
• The case arose from a challenge by Assamese indigenous groups who, in 2009, sought to contest this part of Section 6A. They argued that granting citizenship to these migrants diluted their cultural identity and violated their right to conserve their culture.

Majority Opinion on Citizenship and Culture

• Justice Surya Kant, writing for the majority, framed citizenship in the broader context of fraternity under the Constitution, viewing it as an inclusive concept that should respect differences within the country.
• The judgment takes a liberal stance, rejecting a narrow, exclusionary definition of citizenship.
• While acknowledging the dangers of illegal migration, the Court balanced these concerns by maintaining that migrants who arrived before the 1971 cut-off date should be granted citizenship, as per the Assam Accord.
• The majority rejected the claim that Section 6A violated the cultural rights of indigenous Assamese people. Instead, it adopted a pluralist interpretation of Article 29, which protects the right to conserve culture but does not exclude the coexistence of other cultures.
• The Court concluded that the failure to implement the deportation of post-1971 migrants, as mandated by Section 6A, was the real source of grievances.

Right to Vote and Citizenship

• One of the core challenges to Section 6A was based on Article 326, which guarantees adult suffrage for elections. Petitioners argued that granting citizenship to migrants diluted the voting rights of Assam’s original inhabitants.
• The majority rejected this, holding that Article 326 does not allow one group of citizens to exclude another from voting.
• Voting rights are determined by statutory provisions passed by Parliament, and no community can claim an electoral majority by seeking the exclusion of others.

Dissent on Temporal Unreasonableness

• Justice Pardiwala, in a strong dissent, introduced the concept of temporal unreasonableness to strike down Section 6A. He argued that while the provision may have been reasonable at the time of its passage, it had become unreasonable over time due to its failure to prevent illegal migration.
• The dissent criticized Section 6A for lacking a sunset clause, meaning it could continue to benefit individuals indefinitely, thus rendering it unconstitutional.
• This doctrine adds a new dimension to legal reasoning in India, with potential implications for future constitutional challenges.

Future Implications for Citizenship Laws

• The Supreme Court’s judgment, including both majority and dissenting opinions, has opened up new debates on citizenship, culture, and voting rights in India.
• These perspectives are likely to play a significant role in the Court’s pending review of other citizenship-related laws, particularly the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019.
• This ruling is likely to shape the future of constitutional law and citizenship in India.