Section 6A of the Citizenship Act — why it fails Assam

Context: The 4:1 majority ruling by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of
India, in October 2024, that upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A
of the Citizenship Act, 1955 is significant. This provision establishes a
distinct framework for migrants from the former East Pakistan (Bangladesh) who
settled in Assam, allowing them to acquire Indian citizenship if they arrived
before March 25, 1971. Section 6A of the Citizenship Act was introduced in 1985
following the Assam Accord, an agreement reached between the Government of
India and the leaders of the Assam Movement. The movement arose in response to
the migration from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) into Assam, sparking concerns
about the preservation of the local culture, economic strain, and political
imbalance.

Key points

·       Overview: Recently, the
Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act
1955, which permits immigrants from Bangladesh residing in Assam to secure
Indian citizenship, as a valid piece of legislation aligned to the Preambular
value of fraternity. According to the court, the principle of fraternity cannot
be selectively applied to one section living in Assam while another lot are
labelled “illegal immigrants”.

·       Majority
Opinion: Reaffirming Constitutional Validity - The court ruled that
Section 6A does not violate Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution, which set
26th January 1950, as the cut-off for granting citizenship to migrants from
East and West Pakistan. 

Power of Union - Parliament
enacted Section 6A under its powers from Article 246 and Entry 17 of the Union
List, which addresses citizenship, naturalization, and aliens. 

Acknowledging
the Issue - The court affirmed that the ongoing migration from Bangladesh has placed
a significant burden on Assam. 

Clarifying Responsibility
-
It was emphasised that Section 6A should not be solely blamed for this
situation. 

Criticizing the
System - The court found that the current mechanisms and Tribunals responsible
for identifying illegal immigrants in Assam are inadequate. 

Need for
Oversight - The enforcement of immigration and citizenship laws requires judicial
supervision and cannot be left to the discretion of authorities. 

·       Dissenting
Opinion: Dissenting view - The dissent declared Section 6A
unconstitutional with prospective effect, rejecting concerns that different
ethnic groups would infringe on the cultural and linguistic rights of others.

Balancing
Development and Immigration - The dissent asserted that sustainable development
and population growth can coexist without conflict.

·       Implications
of this Judgement: Assamese Identity Preservation - The
majority opinion dismisses the notion that the presence of immigrants
automatically infringes upon the cultural and linguistic rights of the Assamese
people.  

Tensions on
Demographic Shift - Critics argue that continued immigration strains
Assam’ s demographic balance, threatening its cultural identity and economic
resources.  

Resource
Allocation - Immigrants continue to be eligible for citizenship and the resources and
rights that come with it, potentially increasing strain on Assam’s already
limited economic resources. 

Pressure on
Immigration Laws - The judgment stresses the need for more effective
implementation of immigration laws, particularly the detection and deportation
of illegal immigrants who entered after the 1971 cut-off date.