On Section 6A of the Citizenship Act
(Source – The Hindu, International Edition – Page No. – 10)
| Topic: GS2 – Indian Polity |
| Context |
| ● The Supreme Court upheld Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which grants citizenship to Assam migrants who entered before March 25, 1971.
● This provision stems from the 1985 Assam Accord to manage migration during the Bangladesh Liberation War. ● The ruling addresses key concerns around citizenship, equality, and Assam’s demography. |
Why Was Section 6A Challenged?
- Petitioners argued that having a different cut-off date for Assam violated Article 14 (right to equality) and conflicted with Articles 6 and 7, which regulate citizenship for the rest of India.
- Concerns were raised about the demographic impact on Assam and the alleged threat to indigenous cultural and linguistic rights under Article 29 of the Constitution.
| What Does Section 6A Stipulate? |
| ● Section 6A of the Citizenship Act originates from the Assam Accord of 1985, a political settlement between the Indian government and Assam’s student groups.
● It provides a legal framework for granting or denying Indian citizenship to migrants in Assam based on the cut-off date of March 25, 1971, marking the start of the Bangladesh Liberation War. ● Migrants of “Indian origin” who entered before January 1, 1966, were given full citizenship, while those who entered between January 1, 1966, and March 24, 1971, were granted limited citizenship rights for a decade, including the withholding of voting rights. |
Majority Ruling
- Justices Kant and Chandrachud upheld Section 6A, noting Assam’s unique historical and political context, balancing humanitarian concerns and the strain on Assam’s resources.
- They ruled that Section 6A is consistent with Articles 6 and 7, addressing migrants not covered by the Constitution’s citizenship provisions.
- The judges also clarified that “external aggression” in Article 355 refers to military threats, not migration driven by humanitarian reasons.
Dissenting Opinion
- The dissent argued that Section 6A had failed to control illegal migration and was now inconsistent with constitutional principles.
- The dissent noted that the provision lacked a sunset clause and incentivized illegal immigration.
- It criticised the identification process, relying solely on state intervention without provisions for self-declaration of foreign status.
Potential Ramifications
- The March 25, 1971, cut-off date underpins the National Register of Citizens (NRC), which identified 19 lakh residents in Assam as potential non-citizens.
- The ruling could bolster demands to repeal the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019, which has a different cut-off date for granting citizenship to non-Muslim migrants from neighbouring countries.
| Practice Question: Examine the constitutional and demographic implications of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, in the context of Assam’s migration issue. (150 Words /10 marks) |
