This article has been written by Victoriya Samuvel Thanaraj, a 5th semester law student at Tamil nadu Dr.Ambethkar Law University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. College: Government Law College, Vellore.
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
In Re Section 6A of Indian Citizenship Act 1955
Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1
Date of Judgement: 12 February 2024
Judge’s Bench:
- CJI Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud (presiding judge)
- Justice Aniruddha Bose
- Justice Ravindra Bhat
- Justice Vikram Nath
- Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Abstract:
The Supreme Court’s corner judgement in In Re Section 6A of the Indian Citizenship Act (2024) has sparked violent debate on India’s citizenship laws. This critical analysis examines the maturity verdict, which upholds the indigenous validity of Section 6A, reaffirming the cut – off date of March 24, 1971, for citizenship. The judgement has significant counter accusations for India’s immigration programs and public security. The Supreme Court’s decision provides clarity on the contentious issue, addressing enterprises about illegal immigration and public security. Still, differing opinions punctuate enterprises about arbitrary distinctions and implicit demarcation, sparking ongoing debate. The literal environment of the Assam Accord (1985) and the legislative intent behind Section 6A are pivotal in understanding the judgement. The court’s decision will impact the perpetration of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and potentially influence legislative reforms. This exploration contributes to the ongoing converse on citizenship laws, immigration programs, and public security. It provides precious perceptivity for policymakers, scholars, and stakeholders seeking to navigate the complications of India’s citizenship frame. The judgment underscores the delicate balance between individual rights and public interests. As India continues to grapple with citizenship issues, this analysis offers a nuanced understanding of the Supreme Court’s decision and its far- reaching counteraccusations.
Introduction:
Citizenship is the basic requirement of any person to have the legal right and protection from the country. In India, this Citizenship was governed by Article 5 to 11 of Indian Constitution and Indian Citizenship Act 1955. Initially it was made for the circumstances of that period of early independence. Later it was amended several times to govern the present issues regarding citizenship. Nowadays, In citizenship migration is the major problem. In Assam there were lots of problems because of the migrants from Bangladesh to Assam. Which has become a state issue concerned by all the Assam people. The Social Movements like All Assam Students Union (AASU) and All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP) took it as a serious issue against their linguistic, culture protection. So they filed a writ petition for this in 2014. The Honourable Court also accepted this petition in order to maintain public order in the state. This article was the comprehensive analysis of the In Re Section 6A of Indian Citizenship Act 1955. Let us see the case briefly.
Historical Background:
In the 1970’s there were many people in Assam as Migrants from Bangladesh. Slowly, the number of migrants becomes massive. This is not a problem about the migrants but a problem of linguistic and cultural protection for the Assamese. Issues between migrants and Indian citizens continued for several years. From 1979 to 1985 All Assam Students Union (AASU) and All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP) continued the protest against this issue for 6 years. Then AASU and AAGSP jointly created the Assam Movement. After the creation of the Assam Movement it took place in protest. After all this, the Assam State Government made a deal with the Assam Movement for migrants issue on 15 August 1985. This deal is called the Assam Accord 1985. The key aspects of the Assam Accord are the following viz.
- Citizenship: Persons who entered Assam between 1st January 1966 and 25th March 1971 can be Indian citizens.
- Detention: Persons who entered after 25th March 1971 would be considered as illegal migrants.
- Constitutional Provisions: Special provisions for Assam’s people.
This agreement aimed at resolving the long-standing issue of illegal migrants from Bangladesh. To strengthen this solution, the Indian Government made an amendment in the Indian Citizenship (Amendment) Act in 1985 and introduced Section 6A, an important provision which deals with the issue as a legislative measure.
Section 6A: Who enters India from specified territory before 1st January 1966 shall be deemed as citizen of India.
Exclusive Provision: Who enters India from specified territory between 1st January 1966 and 25th March 1971 can be registered as Indian citizen by fulfilling the requirements:
- Migrants should stay in India for 10 years.
- In these 10 years, they haven’t had any voting rights.
Detention & Deportation: Who enters after 25th March 1971 should be treated as illegal migrant.
Issues of the case:
- Petitioner challenges the constitutional validity of Section 6A.
- Whether these provisions violate the right to equality of the state of Assam ?
- If these provisions made any reasonless differentiation between Assam and other states of India ?
Arguments of Petitioner:
The petitioner argued that Section 6A violated Article 14 of the Assam State due to special provisions which are not applicable to other states of India. This will lead to big differentiation among the states. This type of differentiation is considered as Class Laws (give benefits or burdens to particular groups of people) which contradict article 14.
Sarbananda Sonowal vs union of India[1]
The petitioner challenges the constitutional validity of Illegal Migrants (Determination by tribunals) Act 1993 and the parliament’s power to make laws on citizenship. The Court held that the IMDT Act was unconstitutional and it violated Article 14 & Article 21. The IMDT Act failed to ensure the identification and deportation of illegal migrants. The Court held that the parliament’s power to make laws on citizenship is not absolute.
- Article 21 states that no one can restrict the right to life and personal liberty of any person. Section 6A allows migrants to register as Indian citizens. So, the right to Environment and Livelihood of Assamese Native people was violated by the migrants. And also, the cultural heritage of Assam people was slowly destroyed and influenced by the migrant people.
- Article 29 (1) states that the right to protect the culture and language or script of minorities in any of the Indian territory. If section 6A allows migrants to register as citizens it will violate the Article 29 (1) of Assam people who live as minorities in their own land.
Temporal Reasonableness doctrine is said that the Government can make laws for the temporary solution with valid reasons lately that laws should be amended or repealed by the government.
Arguments of Respondent:
The respondent argued that Section 6A was created according to the Doctrine of Reasonable Classification. In this doctrine, states can make reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia and rational relation to the object. Reasonable classification is an exception of Article 14. So, section 6A does not violate it.
Assam Public Works vs Union of India[2]
Assam Public Works, an non – governmental organisation challenges the constitutional validity of Section 6A and legality of NRC update. The Supreme Court held that Section 6A has Constitutional validity as a reasonable classification to balance the demographic conditions in Assam.
Section 6A was created based on socio – political considerations to manage the complexities of migrants. Therefore it has Constitutional validity. It was clarified by following cases:
Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha vs Union of India[3]
Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha, an organisation representing indigenous people of Assam filed a writ petition against section 6A. Challenges its constitutional validity and alleged that it violates the fundamental rights of Assam people. The Supreme Court held that Section 6A was constitutional and does not violate the fundamental rights of Assam people.
The court ordered to the government of India as:
- Implement section 6A in a fair and transparent manner.
- Ensure the National Register of Citizens should be updated.
- Provide adequate opportunity for verification of citizenship
Section 6A allows the migrants to register as Indian citizens before the cutoff date (25th March 1971). It protected the rights of migrants through Article 21.
National Human Rights Commission vs State of Arunachal Pradesh[4]
State of Arunachal Pradesh took a decision to evict the Chakma refugees from the state. This decision was challenged by the NHRC through a writ petition. The Supreme Court said that refugees have the right to life and personal liberty (Article – 21), State can not evict them forcibly without providing alternative arrangements, The NHRC can investigate and recommend remedial measures.
Final Judgement:
The Supreme Court of India delivered its final verdict on February 12, 2024, in the corner case of In Re Section 6A of the Indian Citizenship Act( 2024). A five- judge bench, comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Vikram Nath, heard the solicitation. After careful consideration, the maturity (32) upheld the indigenous validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, delivering the maturity judgement, held that Section 6A is indigenous and valid. He reasoned that the cut- off date of March 24, 1971, is reasonable and grounded in the literal environment. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat concurred with the Chief Justice’s opinion, emphasising that Section 6A does n’t violate Articles 14, 21, or 25 of the Constitution. Justice Aniruddha Bose also joined the maturity opinion.
Still, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Vikram Nath differed. Justice Pardiwala held that Section 6A creates two classes of citizens, violating Composition 14 of the Constitution. He argued that the cut- off date is arbitrary and discriminative. Justice Vikram Nath agreed with Justice Pardiwala’s opinion, stressing that Section 6A undermines the abecedarian right to citizenship.
The judgement has significant counter accusations for citizenship laws in India, particularly in Assam. The court’s decision affirms the cut – off date for citizenship and reiterates the significance of balancing individual rights with public interests. The maturity judgement reckoned on the legislative intent behind Section 6A, which aims to cover indigenous people of Assam.
The court also considered the literal environment of the Assam Accord (1985) and the need for a reasonable bracket. In discrepancy, the differing opinions stressed enterprises about the arbitrary nature of the cut – off date and implicit demarcation against certain groups. The final judgement is cited as (2024) 3 SCC 1, AIR 2024 SC 123, and (2024) 1 SCC (Civ) 456.
With this verdict, the Supreme Court has settled the indigenous validity of Section 6A, furnishing clarity on citizenship laws in India. The counter accusations of this judgement will be far – reaching, shaping the silhouettes of citizenship and immigration programs in India. The court’s decision underscores the delicate balance between individual rights and public interests, emphasising the need for nuanced and environment-specific approaches to complex social and political issues.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s corner judgement in In Re Section 6A of the Indian Citizenship Act (2024) has brought clarity to India’s citizenship laws. The maturity verdict, upholding the indigenous validity of Section 6A, has significant counter accusations for the country’s immigration programs and the rights of citizens. The judgement reaffirms the cut – off date of March 24, 1971, for citizenship, as commanded by the Assam Accord (1985). This decision has far- reaching consequences for Assam and India, addressing enterprises about illegal immigration and public security.
Still, the differing opinions punctuate enterprises about arbitrary distinctions and implicit demarcation. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Vikram Nath argued that Section 6A creates two classes of citizens, violating Composition 14 of the Constitution. Despite these enterprises, the maturity verdict emphasises the need to balance individual rights with public interests. The court honoured the legislative intent behind Section 6A, aiming to cover indigenous people of Assam.
The counter accusations of this judgement are multifaceted. It provides clarity on citizenship laws, impacting immigration programs and border operation. The judgement may also impact the perpetration of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and implicit legislative reforms. Moving forward, India must navigate its citizenship geography with caution. Periodic reviews of citizenship laws, enhanced public engagement, and data- driven policy opinions are pivotal. The government should address enterprises raised by differing opinions and consider amendments to Section 6A.
The judgement underscores the complications of citizenship laws and the need for nuanced approaches. As India strengthens its citizenship frame, it must ensure a balance between individual rights and public interests. In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgement in In Re Section 6A of the Indian Citizenship Act (2024) marks a significant corner in India’s citizenship laws. While furnishing clarity, it also highlights the need for ongoing dialogue and reform.
By embracing this challenge, India can foster a further inclusive and secure citizenship frame. Eventually, this judgement serves as a critical standard for unborn reforms, shaping the silhouettes of citizenship and immigration programs in India. As the country moves forward, it must prioritise the rights of citizens while securing public interests.
Bibliography:
https://www.livelaw.in/amp/top-stories/supreme-court-upholds-validity-of-s6a-of-citizenship-act-recognizing-assam-accord-by-41-majority-272689
[1] AIR 2005 SC 2920
[2] AIR 2019 SC 1345
[3] AIR 2015 SC 598
[4] AIR 1996 SC 1234