NEW DELHI: In a majority verdict, the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act which grants Indian citizenship to immigrants who came to Assam between January 1, 1966 and March 25, 1971.
Section 6A was inserted into the Citizenship Act as a special provision to deal with the citizenship of people covered under the Assam Accord.
The five-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, noted that Parliament had the legislative competence to enact this provision.
The Chief Justice emphasised that the enactment of Section 6A was a political solution to a unique problem faced by Assam, where the massive influx of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh after the latter's independence had seriously threatened the state's culture and demographics.
"The Parliament had the legislative competence to enact it," the Chief Justice stated, adding that those who entered Assam from Bangladesh on or after March 25, 1971, are considered illegal immigrants who must be identified, detected, and deported.
The judgment highlighted that one of the key reasons for the students' agitation in Assam was the dilution of voting rights for the indigenous population due to this influx.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Section 6A with a majority of 4:1. Justice J B Pardiwala, however, dissented and held Section 6A as unconstitutional.
The majority verdict held that cut off date of March 25, 1971 for entry into Assam and granting citizenship is correct.
Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices M.M. Sundresh and Manoj Misra, concurred with the Chief Justice’s views, affirming the government's competence to take measures to preserve law and order and the interests of citizens.
Justice Kant remarked that while Section 6A could not be enacted solely for Assam, the severity of the situation there warranted governmental action.
The court directed both the central and state governments to effectively implement the guidelines established in the Sarbananda Sonowal judgments regarding the identification, detection, and deportation of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants.
It also stated that it would henceforth monitor this identification and deportation process.
The Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha, a Guwahati-based civil society organization, along with other petitioners, had challenged Section 6A in the Supreme Court as early as 2012.
The Chief Justice underscored that the objective of Section 6A must be understood in the context of the post-Bangladesh War. He reiterated that the Assam Accord represented a political solution to the problem of illegal migration, while Section 6A served as the legislative solution, balancing humanitarian concerns with the need to protect the local population.
