IN RE SECTION 6A OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT 1955 vs 2024

IN RE SECTION 6A OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT 1955 vs 2024

Case Title and Citation: IN RE SECTION 6A OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT 1955 v. 2024 INSC 789 (17 October 2024)

Factual Background

Multiple petitions were filed with the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the legality of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. This section was introduced in 1985 through the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985, to give statutory effect to specific provisions of the Memorandum of Settlement relating to the foreigners issue in Assam, known as the “Assam Accord”. Section 6A grants citizenship to persons of Indian origin who migrated to Assam from territories now constituting Bangladesh. It creates two primary categories based on entry date: those who arrived before January 1, 1966, are deemed citizens; and those who arrived between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, can acquire citizenship through registration after being detected as foreigners by a Tribunal. The Petitioners asserted that this provision violated various constitutional articles. Given the important constitutional issues, a two-judge bench referred the matter to a Constitution Bench for adjudication in 2014.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Section 6A of the Citizenship Act suffers from constitutional defects by prescribing cut-off dates different from those in Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution, and whether Parliament had the legislative authority to enact such a provision.
2. Whether Section 6A violates fundamental rights, including the right to equality (Article 14), due to unreasonable classification (singling out Assam) or manifest arbitrariness (regarding cut-off dates and process vagueness).
3. Whether Section 6A infringes upon the rights of indigenous communities in Assam by violating their cultural rights (Article 29) or political rights (Article 326), or by constituting an insufficient response to external aggression (Article 355).

Decision of the Supreme Court

By a majority of 4:1, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The Court held that the provision falls within constitutional limits.

Reason for the decision

The majority opinion provided the following reasoning:

• Legislative Competence (Part II): Parliament possesses the power to legislate on citizenship under Article 246 read with Entry 17 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. Article 11 confirms Parliament’s broad power to enact “any” provision regarding citizenship. Since Articles 6 and 7 only govern citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution, they operate in a different legal field from subsequent laws enacted by Parliament, and thus Section 6A does not conflict with or amend these Articles. The common theme of restricting dual citizenship in Article 9 is not overridden by Section 6A; rather, Section 6A implicitly presumes the relinquishment of prior citizenship, subject to revocation under Section 9 if the immigrant is found to have retained dual citizenship.
• Article 14 (Equality and Classification): The differentiation made by Section 6A to treat Assam distinctly from other border states is constitutionally permissible. Assam faces unique circumstances, including a higher influx of migrants relative to its size, justifying separate treatment. Furthermore, Section 6A aimed to implement the specific political settlement (Assam Accord) made exclusively with Assam. The cut-off dates (January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971) are rational, corresponding to the revision of electoral rolls and the onset of the Bangladesh Liberation War, respectively. Therefore, the classifications established are based on an intelligible differentia with a reasonable nexus to the objective of balancing humanitarian concerns with local interests. The provision is neither under-inclusive nor over-inclusive in a manner that would justify striking it down.
• Manifest Arbitrariness: The provision is not manifestly arbitrary. The cut-off dates were chosen after careful deliberation. Additionally, the term “ordinarily resident” is not excessively vague, as it is used elsewhere in legal contexts and judicial interpretation has provided clarity. Failure in implementation does not equate to the unconstitutionality of the statutory design.
• Article 355 (Duty of the Union): While the Union has a duty under Article 355 to protect states from external aggression (which illegal migration might constitute), the provision itself cannot be used as an independent legal basis to challenge the validity of a statute. The Union’s duty under Article 355 is intended as a justification for exercising emergency powers (Articles 356 and 357). Section 6A provides a regulated approach to citizenship and does not promote unrestricted migration, thus it does not violate Article 355.
• Article 29 (Cultural Rights): Section 6A does not violate the right to conserve culture and language guaranteed under Article 29(1). The petitioners failed to demonstrate that the operation of Section 6A directly interferes with the ability of the Assamese people to take positive steps to preserve their distinct culture, language, or script.
• Dissenting View: Justice Pardiwala, in his dissent, declared Section 6A unconstitutional with prospective effect, arguing that the provision suffers from manifest arbitrariness due to temporal unreasonableness. He held that Section 6A failed to achieve its goals over time because it lacked a time limit for identifying migrants and unfairly shifted the onus of detection onto the State, leading to the continued presence of illegal immigrants.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, by majority, affirmed the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The Court concluded that the provision is a permissible exercise of legislative power to manage the migration crisis in Assam, is supported by a rational classification based on unique historical and geographical factors, and does not violate the fundamental rights of the citizens of Assam. The court noted that the current issues largely stem from the inadequate enforcement of the provision and directed enhanced efforts to utilize the existing legal framework (including the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950, and the Foreigners Act, 1946) to effectively implement the intent of Section 6A and detect illegal migrants who entered after the cutoff date of 1971.