The Supreme Court of India, in a significant legal development, has reserved its judgment on a series of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. This pivotal section deals with the grant of Indian citizenship to certain categories of immigrants in Assam. The matter was heard by a five-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and including Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra.
Section 6A, a crucial part of the Assam Accord, was introduced to address the unique circumstances in Assam. It allows foreign migrants of Indian origin, who arrived in Assam after January 1, 1966, but before March 25, 1971, to apply for Indian citizenship. This provision has been a subject of contention, particularly among indigenous groups in Assam, who argue that it effectively legalizes the illegal infiltration of foreign migrants, predominantly from Bangladesh, thereby altering the demographic and cultural landscape of the region.
Over four days of hearings, the bench listened to a range of arguments from various intervenors and the petitioners’ rejoinder submissions. Key among the submissions was the input from Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who provided the bench with detailed information on illegal immigrants, those who had been granted citizenship under Section 6A, and the status of border fencing initiatives.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, representing one of the parties, focused on the historical and contextual underpinnings of Indian citizenship. He stressed that Indian citizenship has historically been inclusive and not based on ethno-nationalist principles like language, religion, or culture. Hegde pointed out the particular context of the partition, where the Eastern border (through Bangladesh) was kept fluid to accommodate the influx of Hindus who were yet to migrate to India.
Senior Advocate CU Singh argued from a legal standpoint, contending that the petitioners were seeking to revoke rights that had been accrued to others over several decades. He maintained that Section 6A, facilitating the determination of foreigners as per the Assam Accord, did not contravene Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Singh’s argument was that granting citizenship to one class of people does not inherently imply a violation, and the denial of citizenship to another class cannot be questioned by a third party.
Advocate Shadan Farasat, representing the Social Justice Forum, raised concerns about the potential shift from civic nationalism to cultural nationalism. He argued that the right to culture, while important, should not be used as a basis to deny someone citizenship. Farasat also referred to international examples, like Malaysia, to illustrate how citizenship can be inclusive while still addressing socio-economic disparities.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, in his rejoinder, emphasized the absence of a temporal limit in the operation of Section 6A. He argued that there was no established mechanism for evaluating, assessing, or determining the grant of citizenship under this section, which he viewed as a critical flaw.
The Supreme Court’s decision to reserve judgment on this matter underscores the legal and constitutional complexities involved in addressing issues of citizenship, migration, and ethnic identity in a diverse and populous country like India. The outcome of this case is eagerly awaited, as it will have far-reaching implications for the legal framework governing citizenship and the rights of migrants, particularly in the context of Assam and the broader Northeastern region of India.
Also read-Supreme Court Declines PIL On Manipur Ethnic Conflict, Cites Executive’s Role (lawchakra.in)
