Explained: Section 6A of Citizenship Act; Origins, Issues, and Supreme Court Verdict

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has upheld Section 6A, which was incorporated in the Citizenship Act 1955 following the signing of the 1985 Assam Accord.

Here’s a detailed explanation of this law and its implications.

What is Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955?

Section 6A was added to the Citizenship Act to specifically address the citizenship status of people affected by the 1985 Assam Accord. 

This agreement was made between the Indian government, led by Rajiv Gandhi, and the All Assam Students Union (AASU), which was then headed by Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, who later served as Assam's chief minister.

The law states that individuals who entered Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, from specific territories like Bangladesh , can apply for citizenship, but only if they have lived in Assam since their arrival. 

However, these individuals were not allowed to register as citizens of India for ten years from the time they were identified. According to the Assam Accord, anyone who entered Assam after March 25, 1971, must be deported. 

Therefore, March 25, 1971, is established as the cut-off date for granting citizenship to migrants, particularly those from Bangladesh .

Why the validity of Section 6A challenged in the Supreme Court?

Several groups, including the Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha, challenged Section 6A in court, arguing that it unfairly focuses on Assam and has led to excessive immigration. 

They claimed that the demographics of Assam have changed significantly due to the citizenship granted to immigrants who assert they arrived before March 25, 1971. The petitioners requested that the cut-off year for identifying and deporting illegal immigrants be set at 1951, rather than 1971. 

Their argument was that Section 6A is discriminatory and arbitrary because it establishes different cut-off dates for migrants in Assam compared to those in the rest of India.

What did the Supreme Court decide?

In a majority ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud noted that the number of migrants in Assam is significantly higher compared to other states, given Assam's smaller land area and the complex process of identifying foreign nationals. 

Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices M.M. Sundresh and Manoj Misra, agreed that Parliament had the authority to create this provision and confirmed that the March 25, 1971 cut-off date is appropriate. 

However, Justice J.B. Pardiwala dissented, stating that Section 6A is unconstitutional due to its potential for misuse through forged documents.

Reactions to the judgment

The AASU, which led a six-year-long protest against illegal immigration in Assam from 1979 to 1985, welcomed the Supreme Court's decision. 

They believe the ruling reinforces the Assam Accord, emphasizing that all illegal entrants should be identified and deported. 

However, Matiur Rahman, a former AASU leader and one of the original petitioners against Section 6A, expressed disappointment, labeling the ruling "unfortunate" and warning that it could turn Assam into a "dumping ground" for foreigners.

Is there any link between Section 6A and NRC? 

Technically, the Supreme Court's decision on Section 6A does not directly relate to the National Register of Citizens (NRC). 

The NRC update in Assam was based on the 1971 voters' list, allowing only those individuals or their descendants listed in that voters' list to apply for NRC inclusion. 

When the final NRC list was published in 2019, approximately 19.06 lakh individuals out of 3.30 crore applicants were excluded.

Following the NRC's release, the AASU and other groups approached the Supreme Court to challenge the results. While the AASU contended that the number of exclusions is low, other groups argue that it is excessively high. The court has not yet addressed this case.

What is the government's position?

The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, acknowledged the petitioners' concerns about the pressures on resources, job opportunities, and demographic changes resulting from the influx of immigrants into Assam . 

He argued that Section 6A is limited to a specific timeframe and that declaring it unconstitutional would not resolve the issue. Mehta highlighted the serious consequences of continued immigration on the people of Assam .

India shares a 4,096 km border with Bangladesh , with 267 km located in Assam . The region has experienced significant migration during and after the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971, as well as prior to the country's independence. 

Indigenous people in Assam have been voicing their concerns about illegal immigration, fearing it threatens their land, jobs, and political influence.