'Immigrants who entered Assam after March 1971 are not entitled to...': What SC said on Section 6A ruling
The Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, with CJI DY Chandrachud stating, "The principle is live and let live," while directing the Ministry of Home Affairs to provide data on illegal migration post-1971.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act with a 4:1 verdict. The judgment was delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud. Section 6A specifically addresses Bangladeshi immigrants who entered Assam between January 1, 1966 and March 25, 1971, allowing them to register as Indian citizens. Immigrants who enter after this cut-off date are ineligible for citizenship.
CJI Chandrachud stated, "Justice Surya Kant has prepared the judgment of this court. He has penned the majority verdict, which has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A. Justice JB Pardiwala has dissented." The Chief Justice elaborated on the rationale behind the verdict, emphasising the unique circumstances in Assam.
"The magnitude of influx into Assam and its effect on culture is higher in Assam," CJI Chandrachud explained. "The impact of 40 lakh migrants in Assam is greater than 57 lakh in West Bengal due to the smaller land area in Assam." He highlighted that the cut-off date of March 25, 1971, was appropriate, noting that migration from East Pakistan into Assam was significant compared to total migration to India post-independence.
CJI Chandrachud further stated, "It is the duty of the Union to safeguard states against external aggression. The mere presence of different ethnic groups in a state does not mean infringement of Article 29(1)." He underscored the importance of proving that one ethnic group is unable to protect its language and culture due to the presence of another group.
Justice Surya Kant, delivering the majority opinion, reinforced the court's stance: "We have upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A. We cannot allow one to choose their neighbours, as it runs against the principle of fraternity. The principle is live and let live." He also emphasised that Section 6A provides citizenship for first-time migrants and is severable from the re-migrant class.
In his judgment, Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Sundresh and Manoj Misra, dismissed the petitioners' claim that Section 6A violated the principle of fraternity as outlined in the Preamble to the Constitution. He emphasized that fraternity should not be interpreted narrowly to imply the ability to choose one's neighbors. Justice Kant also rejected the argument that the provision exhibited "manifest arbitrariness" due to the specified cut-off date.
Addressing the petitioners' concerns related to Article 29, he noted that they failed to demonstrate any adverse effects on Assamese culture and language resulting from immigration. Furthermore, he pointed out that Section 6A requires the detention and deportation of migrants who entered after the cut-off date. The judgment similarly dismissed arguments concerning the infringement of Article 21, stating that the petitioners did not provide evidence of a constitutionally valid impact on their culture due to the presence of other groups.
Justice Kant outlined the conclusions regarding Section 6A, stating that immigrants who entered Assam before January 1, 1966, are deemed to be Indian citizens. Those who arrived between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, are entitled to seek Indian citizenship, provided they meet the necessary eligibility criteria. In contrast, immigrants who entered Assam on or after March 25, 1971 are classified as illegal immigrants and are subject to detection, detention, and deportation.
The ruling reaffirms the Parliament's authority to legislate on citizenship matters, maintaining that Section 6A does not contradict other provisions of the Citizenship Act. The judgment marks a critical juncture in India's ongoing debate over immigration and citizenship, particularly in the context of Assam's demographic challenges.
During the hearing, the Court instructed the Ministry of Home Affairs to provide data on the influx of illegal migrants to Assam and the Northeastern states after March 25, 1971, following Bangladesh's declaration of independence. The Ministry was also directed to submit data-based disclosures under various categories, including the grant of citizenship to immigrants over different periods and the operations of the Foreigners Tribunals that were established.