On October 17, 2024, an important ruling was delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India regarding citizenship in Assam. By a 4-1 majority, the court upheld Section 6A of The Citizenship Act, 1955, which governs the citizenship status of migrants who entered Assam before March 24, 1971. This ruling is decisive not only for Assam but also for the broader discourse on citizenship rights and the powers of Parliament. The case stems from longstanding tensions surrounding migration and demographic changes in the region, rooted in historical events like the Assam Movement of the 1980s.
The Assam Accord
The Assam Accord, signed in 1985, was a tripartite agreement between the Government of India, the Assam state government, and leaders of the Assam Movement, aimed at addressing the issue of illegal immigration. It established January 1, 1966, as the cut-off date for identifying “foreigners” and set the framework for granting citizenship to those who arrived before March 24, 1971. This Accord was a direct response to the socio-political turmoil caused by large-scale migration from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) during and after the Partition. The significance of the Accord lies in its recognition of the unique demographic challenges faced by Assam, distinguishing it from other state of Indias.
Legal Framework and Constitutional Provisions
The Constitution of India provides specific articles concerning citizenship, notably Articles 6 and 7, which address the status of individuals who migrated to India during the Partition. The Supreme Court’s ruling clarified that Section 6A does not amend these articles but rather complements them by addressing the unique circumstances of Assam. The court cited Article 11, which empowers Parliament to legislate on matters of citizenship, affirming that the legislature holds the authority to make laws that govern citizenship, thus reinforcing the constitutional validity of Section 6A.
Challenges to Section 6A
Opponents of Section 6A argued that it violates the Right to Equality by granting citizenship only to certain migrants in Assam while excluding others in similar situations across different states. They contended that the March 24, 1971 cut-off date was arbitrary and discriminatory. However, the court upheld the provision, asserting that the historical context and demographic impact on Assam justified its unique classification. The ruling underscored the court’s view that Assam’s challenges were distinct, warranting a tailored legal approach.
Concerns Over External Aggression
Another point of contention was whether Section 6A facilitates illegal immigration, potentially undermining national security. Critics referenced a previous Supreme Court ruling that classified illegal immigration as “external aggression.” However, the majority opinion suggested that Section 6A provides a regulated framework for citizenship rather than encouraging uncontrolled migration. The court’s stance indicates a nuanced understanding of immigration, balancing the need for security with humanitarian considerations.
Cultural Rights and Demographic Changes
The petitioners also raised concerns about the impact of increased migration on the cultural identity of Assamese people, invoking Article 29(1), which protects the rights of citizens to conserve their culture. The court rejected these arguments, asserting that diversity is a core tenet of Indian democracy. The ruling brought into light that the mere presence of different ethnic groups does not infringe upon the rights of indigenous populations, reinforcing the idea of fraternity among diverse communities.
Dissenting Opinion
Justice J B Pardiwala’s dissent raised critical questions about the effectiveness of Section 6A, arguing it lacked a clear mechanism for identifying migrants and could lead to indefinite delays in citizenship determination. He pointed out that the absence of a timeline for identifying migrants undermines the law’s purpose, potentially allowing individuals to remain on electoral rolls indefinitely. This dissent marks ongoing concerns about the practical implementation of citizenship laws in a rapidly changing demographic landscape.
Implications of the Verdict
The Supreme Court’s ruling has far-reaching implications for citizenship laws in India, particularly in light of the contentious Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2019. By affirming Parliament’s authority to legislate on citizenship, the court has set a precedent that could influence future legal challenges. The ruling also underscores the need for a balanced approach to citizenship that respects historical contexts while safeguarding the rights of all citizens.
