In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (2024)

Case Title & Citation

Title: In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (2024)
Citation: [2024] SCC Online SC XXX

Supreme Court Judgement Pdf: SCI Judgment

Court Name & Bench

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Constitution Bench (Five Judges)
Judges:

1. D.Y. Chandrachud, Chief Justice of India (CJI)
2. Justice M.R. Shah
3. Justice Krishna Murari
4. Justice J.B. PardiWala
5. Justice Manoj Mishra

Date of Judgment

Date delivered: 17 October 2024

Parties Involved

• Petitioners:
  Individuals and civil society organizations, including members of Assamese indigenous communities and certain NGOs concerned with the demographic and cultural impact of Section 6A, as well as political groups seeking to protect the pre-existing rights and identity of Assam’s local population.
• Respondents:
  The Union of India and ancillary agencies, mainly the Ministry of Home Affairs, defending the constitutionality of Section 6A, and individuals or groups supporting the continued operation of the Assam Accord.

Facts of the Case

Background and Context

The genesis of Section 6A lies in the Assam Accord of 1985, signed between the Government of India, the Assam state government, and leaders of the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) after six years of agitation (“Assam Movement”) against perceived large-scale illegal migration from then East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) into Assam.

Key chronologies and facts:

• 1947–1971: Following Partition and later the Bangladesh Liberation War, Assam, being on the frontier, witnessed significant migration of people across the porous border. The influx intensified around the time of the 1971 war leading to independence of Bangladesh.
• 1955: Citizenship Act of 1955 passed, establishing the regime for acquisition and loss of Indian citizenship, with general cutoff based on 19 July 1948 for post-partition immigrants from Pakistan.
• 1966–1971: Mass migration due to political unrest and war in East Pakistan.
• 1979–1985: Assam saw massive, often violent, agitation to detect and deport illegal immigrants. The crux was to protect Assamese cultural, demographic, and political interests.
• 1985: Assam Accord signed, as a solution, provided for the detection and deletion of foreigners and a specific framework for regularization of those who entered Assam between 1966 and 1971.
• 1985 (Act No. 65 of 1985): Section 6A introduced into the Citizenship Act, specially carving out a process for the regularization and naturalization of “illegal migrants” who had arrived in Assam on or after 1 January 1966 but before 25 March 1971.

Legal Challenge

Petitioners contended that:

• Section 6A created a special citizenship regime, unique only for Assam.
• The 1971 cutoff is arbitrary, endangers Assamese culture, and undermines the constitutional scheme for citizenship laid down in Articles 5-7.
• There is demographic anxiety that the influx of migrants under this provision will threaten the identity and rights of the indigenous Assamese.

The Supreme Court, considering the significance of the issues, constituted a Constitution Bench and issued notices to the Union of India and the State of Assam. The question essentially involved balancing political, constitutional, and humanitarian considerations in a historic and volatile context.

Issues Raised

The Bench clarified the following issues for determination:

1. Constitutional Validity of Section 6A:
   Is Section 6A ultra vires the Constitution, especially vis-à-vis Articles 5, 6, 7, and 14, by creating a class of citizens based on a unique region-and-time-specific cutoff?
2. Legislative Competence:
   Was Parliament legally competent, under Article 11 of the Constitution, to enact Section 6A in a manner that, arguably, supersedes or contradicts the original citizenship framework of the Constitution?
3. Rationality of the Cut-off Date:
   Is the March 25, 1971 cutoff irrational or arbitrary, and does it unfairly dilute the rights of indigenous Assamese people?
4. Rights and Due Process:
   Does the registration and National Register of Citizens (NRC) process under Section 6A ensure procedural fairness and protect the basic rights of those affected?
5. Impact on the Tribal and Indigenous Population:
   Does Section 6A violate Article 14 by putting Assam’s indigenous and tribal people at a disadvantage not shared by citizens of other Indian states?

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners’ Contentions:

• Contravention of the Constitution:
  Argued that Articles 5–7 exhaustively enumerate citizenship rights post-Independence. The power in Article 11 (Parliament’s power to regulate citizenship) does not extend to amending the Constitution’s basic structure or contravening its essential scheme.
• Article 14 – Equality:
  Section 6A creates an impermissible classification; extends a benefit to one state and one community of migrants, thereby discriminating against others and undermining Assam’s local interests.
• Demographic Insecurity and Identity Loss:
  Permitting a large class of migrants to attain citizenship after 1966 (particularly up to 25 March 1971) would irretrievably alter Assam’s demographic makeup, thus causing cultural erasure and political dilution of indigenous peoples’ rights.
• Unreasonableness of Date & Process:
  Asserted that 25 March 1971 as a cut-off has no rational nexus to the objectives of the citizenship regime—other states have an earlier cutoff; Assam’s does not serve constitutional uniformity.
• Undermining Federalism and Constitutional Plan:
  Parliament, in enacting Section 6A, failed to maintain the constitutional scheme envisaged by the framers and unilaterally imposed a burdensome regularization process on Assam.

Key Judgments

• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (creamy layer) for reasonable classification test.
• Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005) on the threat posed by illegal migration to Assam’s unique identity.
• Constitution of India, Articles 5–7, 11, 14, and Preamble.

Respondents’ Contentions:

• Parliament’s Plenary Power under Article 11:
  Parliament is empowered to make citizenship law, including exceptional circumstances warranting region-specific frameworks, as was the case under the Assam Accord.
• Balance and Pragmatism:
  The cut-off of March 1971 corresponds to the outbreak of the Bangladesh War, which led to an unprecedented refugee crisis (humanitarian context).
• Legal and Constitutional Justification:
  Article 11 does not preclude Parliament from addressing ground realities post-Constitution; Section 6A is for a unique historical scenario, not for general uniform application.
• Procedural Safeguards in NRC:
  The NRC and related regulations ensure identification and registration are not arbitrary, and affected people have remedies and recourse.
• Assam Accord is a Political Settlement:
  Section 6A is the legislative realization of a democratically-negotiated accord, forming a legitimate basis for special provisions.

Key Judgments

• Article 11, Constitution of India.
• Precedents upholding regional accommodation and flexible constitutional interpretation in exceptional cases.

Judgment

• Majority Verdict (4:1):
  The Supreme Court, by a majority of 4–1, upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
• The Court held that Section 6A was not violative of Articles 5–7, nor was the March 25, 1971 cutoff date irrational or arbitrary in the Assam context.
• Section 6A was found to be a valid and reasonable legislative response to exceptional circumstances, balancing humanitarian concerns, Assamese interests, and the historical mandate of the Assam Accord.
• Dissent:
  Justice J.B. Pardiwala disagreed, holding that Section 6A was temporally unreasonable, risked eroding the identity of Assam’s indigenous communities, and should thus be struck down.
• Orders/Directions:
  The Court directed continued adherence to NRC norms and provided assurance of procedural safeguards and judicial review for those affected by NRC outcomes.

Ratio Decidendi

• Constitutional Compatibility:
  The Court reasoned that Article 11 vests Parliament with broad legislative power to regulate citizenship, including making laws to meet specific, regionally circumscribed crises—like the one faced by Assam in 1971-85.
• Special Provision Justified:
  The peculiar demography, history, and the existential threat to Assamese identity necessitated Section 6A; the Assam Movement, Accord, and subsequent legislative action are an exercise in democratic and constitutional accommodation.
• Non-Contradiction of Articles 5 to 7:
  Section 6A is not inconsistent with the original constitutional framework, as it does not seek to override but supplements the basic structure in light of later, extraordinary events.
• Rational Cut-off Date:
  The court observed that March 25, 1971 is tied to the Bangladesh Liberation War—a logical and globally recognized humanitarian event—making the classification reasonable.
• Legitimacy of Parliament’s Choices:
  The Bench held that courts must defer to legitimately-exercised legislative wisdom, especially when arising from a negotiated political settlement with constitutional bearings.
• Procedural Safeguards:
  Affected individuals have access to review and appeals under the NRC process, upholding Article 21’s due process requirement.

The dissenting opinion stressed that incremental and localized constitutional amendments could set an undesirable precedent endangering federal structure and the sanctity of uniform citizenship.

Conclusion

Impact and Significance
This judgment is among the most significant in contemporary Indian constitutional law, settling a 40-year-old conflict between regional identity and national integration. By upholding Section 6A, the Supreme Court has preserved Parliament’s ability to craft region-specific solutions in times of crises, but has also reinforced the need for careful judicial scrutiny of such exceptions in future.

While it secures legal finality and certainty for lakhs of Assamese, the verdict leaves open ongoing debates around cultural preservation, equitable federalism, and the long-term socio-political dynamics of northeast India.

Critical Reflection
One may argue that while judicial deference to Parliament in such politically sensitive situations is pragmatic, there remains a risk that persistent anxieties among indigenous Assamese populations need further active redressal, perhaps via more robust participatory and consultative frameworks. The upholding of due process in NRC implementation is crucial, but addressing ground-level grievances is equally important to avoid a resurgence of mistrust or unrest.

Reference(S):

• Supreme Court of India, In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, Judgment dated 17 Oct 2024.
• Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005) 5 SCC 665
• The Citizenship Act, 1955, Section 6A
• Constitution of India, Articles 5–7, 11, 14.