SC upholds Section 6A of Citizenship Act as valid law

• A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in a majority judgment of 4:1 ratio, on Thursday upheld the constitutionality of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which permits immigrants from Bangladesh residing in Assam to secure Indian citizenship.

Highlights:

• A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a majority judgment on the constitutionality of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, with a 4:1 ratio. This section allows certain immigrants from Bangladesh in Assam to obtain Indian citizenship, aligning with the Preambular value of fraternity.

Key Observations by Justice Surya Kant:

• Justice Surya Kant, who authored the lead opinion, emphasized that the principle of fraternity should not be selectively applied. He stated:
• Fraternity requires coexistence among diverse backgrounds, compelling the court to prioritize the protection of communities over disenfranchisement.
• The Section is rooted in the Assam Accord of 1985, designating immigrants who entered Assam before January 1, 1966, as citizens, while setting conditions for those who arrived between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971.

Issues of Migration:

• Justice Kant acknowledged the challenges posed by ongoing migration from Bangladesh:
• He noted that the burden on Assam cannot solely be attributed to Section 6A.
• A significant portion of the responsibility lies with the government's failure to detect and deport post-1971 immigrants.
• The court criticized the effectiveness of existing statutory machinery for identifying illegal immigrants, urging the need for improved monitoring and enforcement.

Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud's Opinion:

• In a separate opinion, Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud supported Justice Kant's view:
• He described Section 6A as a balancing act between humanitarian concerns for immigrants and the impact of their influx on Assam's resources.
• The cut-off date of March 25, 1971, was deemed reasonable, as it aligned with historical events surrounding the Bangladesh Liberation War.

Majority Decision:

• The majority concluded that Section 6A did not violate the citizenship provisions of Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution. The court addressed petitions from NGOs arguing that Section 6A threatened the rights of Assamese people and led to demographic changes.

Dissenting Opinion:

• Justice J.B. Pardiwala provided the lone dissenting opinion, deeming Section 6A unconstitutional with prospective effect. He raised concerns about cultural preservation, but Chief Justice Chandrachud argued that the presence of diverse ethnic groups does not inherently threaten cultural rights.

Prelims Takeaways:

• Assam Accord of 1985