National Desk
17 October
Sandeep Dhand Ludhiana
On Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which grants Indian citizenship to immigrants who entered Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971. The court dismissed petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 6A in a decision delivered by a five-judge constitution bench, with a 4-1 majority.
The bench, headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, emphasized that Section 6A was a special provision introduced in the Citizenship Act as part of the Assam Accord, a political solution to address the issue of illegal migration in the state. While the majority upheld the validity of the provision, Justice JB Pardiwala dissented, declaring Section 6A unconstitutional.
In his judgment, Chief Justice Chandrachud explained that Assam’s smaller geographical size and the lengthy process of identifying foreigners have resulted in a higher rate of immigration compared to other states. He affirmed that the Assam Accord provides a fair political solution to the complex issue of migration, and Parliament holds the legislative power to implement Section 6A.
Justice Suryakant, who wrote the judgment for himself, Justice MM Sundaresh, and Justice Manoj Mishra, agreed with the Chief Justice, stating that the March 25, 1971 deadline for granting citizenship to immigrants in Assam is reasonable and valid.
The court further clarified that the presence of diverse caste groups in Assam does not violate the Constitution’s Article 29(1), which protects cultural rights. The ruling signifies that Section 6A remains a legal measure to address citizenship issues under the Assam Accord, ensuring a balanced approach to immigration in the state.