Introduction
The Supreme Court, in its recent case of In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, judged the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. The provision 6A was held to be constitutional in the ratio 4:1. The decision was given by the 5-judge constitutional bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant, M M Sundresh, Justice Manoj Mishra, and Justice J B Pardiwala. The minority judgment was penned by Justice J. B Pardiwala. The decion is a significant judgment in the history of India, not only for the people of Assam (as the case specifically deals with providing citizenship to the people of Assan who migrated to Assam until March 24, 1971) but also for the whole of India as the case settles some of the important constitutional aspects.
The present lawnote aims to present before the readers the facts of the case. In Re: Section 6A Ctitzenship Act 1955, the decision, the observation, and an analysis of the judgment.
Facts of the case
The whole issue started as early as the 1980s. The issue was basically related to the fight for preserving the indeginous identity of Assam. Due to the events surrounding 1971, like the Bangladesh Liberation Movement, there was a huge influx of illegal migrants from Bangladesh to Assam. Assam witnessed this illegal migration as a threat to the indigenous culture of Assamese people, their resources, and other opportunities. Accordingly, All Students Assam Union (AASU) demanded the identification and deportation of those illegal migrants. The agitation and the demand continued, and finally, for a solution, the Assam Accord was signed.
The Assam Accord was a compromise agreement between the Central Government, State Government, and the leaders of the Assam movement to seetle the long dispute of preserving the identity and culture of Assamese people and the deportation of the illegal migrants, especially Bangladeshis. According to clause 5 of this accord, two dates were taken to detect and deport the illegal migrants. It was finalized that the base date was January 1, 1966, for the deletion of the names from electoral rolls. However, those who entered before the 24 March 1971 may get their names restored after 10 years. It means that the final date was 24 March 1971.
Accordingly, Section 6A was added into the Citizenship Act, 1955, to give effect to the above-mentioned Assam Accord.
The constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, was challenged in the case of In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
Isuses before the Supreme Court
The following were the issues before the Supreme Court for discussion:
- Whether Parliament has the power to enact Section 6A, as it could only be done by Constitutional Amendment?
- Whether it violates Article 14 of the Constitution as a different cut of date has been settled for Assam only from the rest of India?
- Whether it violates Article 29 of the Constitution?
- Whether it violates the fraternity principle as mentioned in the Constitution?
Analysis by the Supreme Court
- With respect to the issue of Parliament’s power to enact, it was answered in affirmative that Parliament has the power to enact this law and the Constitutional Amendment is not required. Moreover, Sections 10 and 11 specifically talk about Parliament’s power to enact the citizenship law, and it is in the exercise of that power that this law has been enacted.
- With regard to the right to equality, it was argued that the setting of a different cutoff date for Assam from the rest of India violated Article 14 of the Constitution. Moreover, the cutoff date was fixed on arbitratry measures. With respect to this argument, the Supreme Court opined that Assam was a unique state as the Assam accord was signed with Assam only. Also, the influence of migration was higher in Assam as compared to any other state, which itself places Assam in a different position as compared to other states; hence, there was no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Another argument was related to the violation of Article 29 of the Constitution. According to which it was argued that Article 29 allows every citizen of India to preserve its indigenous culture. However, when an influx of migrants is allowed, it erodes the ideological culture and heritage of Assamese people. The Supreme Court rejected this argument and stated that merely because citizenship is granted to some people and ethnic variety is allowed in a state, it doesn’t amount to a violation of Article 29 of the Constitution.
- The Supreme Court also held that principles of fraternity have not been violated but instead have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court also observed that the challenge to the Citizenship Act must be given a liberal approach. The government had to strike a balance between the cultural rights of Assamaese on the one hand, and on the other, the government had to see the issue of citizenship from a humanitarian perspective so as to resolve the plight of thousands of migrants, and accordingly, a cutoff date was settled. The date was properly rational, as only on this date was Operation Searchlight launched by Pakistan to curb the nationalist movement in East Pakistan.
Accordingly, the arguments relating to the arbitrage cutoff were rejected.
Conclusion
The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of In Re: Section 6A Ctitzenship Act 1955 is important for India in many ways as it settles the issue of citizenship for the Bangladeshi migrants in Assam. It also defines law related to Article 29 and the concept of fraternity in India. Therefore, this serves as a landmark judgment for India.
Follow the following links for more recent updates: