Blog

Introduction

In accordance with the provisions outlined in the Assam Accord of 1985, Section 6A was added as a crucial part of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985. The Assam Accord was a historic agreement that sought to resolve the complicated issues surrounding immigration and citizenship in the Indian state of Assam. Section 6A was a consequential measure meant to address certain concerns and considerations expressed in the agreement. The passage of Section 6A demonstrated a dedication to tackling the distinct socio-political conditions of Assam and was essential in moulding the regional law structure for citizenship affairs.

The Assamese-specific addition of Section 6A to the Citizenship Act of 1955 was essential to the Assam Accord’s implementation. Before the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, there was widespread migration, which presented significant issues that were addressed by the enactment of this special provision. Of particular note is Section 6A, which requires the identification and removal of foreigners who entered Assam after March 25, 1971, a significant date that marks the establishment of Bangladesh.

Background

The Central Government, the State Government of Assam, and prominent figures from the Assam Movement signed the Assam Accord in 1985, which is a noteworthy tripartite agreement to be considered. The principal objective behind the strategic formulation of this historic agreement was to stop the flood of undocumented migrants from Bangladesh into the state of Assam. Known for its large-scale demonstrations and activity, the Assam Movement was instrumental in bringing the region’s complicated immigration and citizenship concerns to light and giving them attention. With regard to Assam’s socio-political landscape, the agreement was evidence of the cooperative efforts made in an attempt to find a comprehensive and long-lasting solution to the problems brought about by the flood of illegal migrants.  

The provision provides that those who have come to Assam on or after January 1, 1966 but before March 25, 1971 from specified territories, including Bangladesh, as per the  Citizenship Act amended in 1985, and since then are residents of Assam must register themselves under section 18 for citizenship. As a result, the provision fixes March 25, 1971 as the cut-off date for granting citizenship to Bangladeshi migrants in Assam.[1]

Under the terms of the Assam Accord, people who were classified as foreigners in Assam had to register according to guidelines set by the Central Government. These people were given all the rights and responsibilities of citizens for ten years after their status as foreigners was discovered, with the significant exception of being listed on any assembly or parliamentary constituency’s electoral rolls.

The people who fit into this category were supposed to become citizens at the end of the ten years. According to the revised National Register of Citizens (NRC) that was released in Assam in 2019, March 25, 1971, was the designated cut-off date for determining citizenship. Since it corresponds with the time leading up to the Bangladesh Liberation War, which signifies the founding of Bangladesh, this deadline is noteworthy. Following this date was an attempt to address and normalise people’s position in Assam in a way that was in line with the Assam Accord’s concerns and the historical background.  

Challenged in 2012

In 2012, the Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha and others have plead that Section 6A is “unconstitutional” as it establishes a different cut-off date for Indian citizenship in Assam than in the rest of India – July 1948. It has urged that 1951 be considered as the cut-off date for inclusion in the NRC instead of 1971 for Assam. Other organisations have intervened in favour of the section. While hearing the 2012 plea, a two-judge bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton had framed 13 questions on Section 6 A for deliberation by a constitutional bench, in an order passed on December 17, 2014.[2]

There are important constitutional and legal issues raised by the petitioners’ case against Section 6A, which claims that it would violate Article 6 of the Indian Constitution. Those who moved from Pakistan to India during the split are in fact covered by Article 6 of the Constitution with regard to their citizenship status. As per the provisions of Article 6, those who arrived in India prior to July 19, 1949, would automatically obtain Indian citizenship in case either of their parents or grandparents was born there. The main argument posits that Section 6A, which relates to Assam alone and deals with citizenship matters concerning those who came into the state after March 25, 1971, may not align with the values outlined in Article 6. Section 6A is a source of worry as it establishes distinct standards for citizenship in Assam, which might potentially clash with the larger constitutional structure that determines citizenship through migration.

The opponents contend that separating Assam for special citizenship requirements, as outlined in Section 6A, calls into question the fair treatment of people in other states dealing with same migration-related problems. The selective implementation of Section 6A may be viewed as arbitrary and a breach of the equality principle if other states with similar issues are not subject to equivalent rules. It is implied that citizens of Assam are subject to different citizenship laws than citizens of other states by Section 6A’s exclusive application to the state. One could argue that this unequal treatment goes against the fundamental constitutional precept that every person should be treated equally before the law, regardless of where they live. Some argue that it is unfair to treat Assamese citizens differently from other citizens. If people in Assam are subject to different regulations than their counterparts in other states that have comparable immigration issues, this could be viewed as unjust and give rise to concerns about the constitutionality of such discriminatory treatment.

Recent Developments

A five-judge Supreme Court bench commenced hearing from December 5^th  on 17 petitions to examine the constitutional validity of section 6A of the Citizenship Act relating to illegal immigrants in Assam.[3]

According to the petitioner’s statement, ethnicity, language, religion, or culture are not the basis for defining Indian citizenship, nor are they defined by ethno-nationalist ideals. Rather, it underscores the inclusive nature of Indian citizenship and rejects the establishment of an ancestor-based hierarchy. Whether a person obtained citizenship by birth or by another method, the argument emphasises that all citizens are equal before the law. This implies opposition to any attempt to rank citizens as greater or inferior on the basis of their citizenship process or lineage. The petitioners seek to have Section 6A challenged in order to deprive those who profited from it of their citizenship, according to the statement. Particular to Assam, Section 6A addresses citizenship matters pertaining to people who came into the state after a specified date. There is mention of the 2013–14 Assamese National Register of Citizens (NRC) initiative. The initiative, which was overseen by the Supreme Court, was designed to identify foreign nationals. It appears from the statement that the petitioners want the results of this extensive exercise to be reversed.

Malvika Trivedi appeared for All Assam Students’ Union (AASU), one of the original signatories to the 1985 Assam Accord. Trivedi submitted that the “continuing problems” in Assam arising out of illegal migration are a consequence of the “woefully inadequate” implementation of the accord, and not because of the enactment of Section 6A. Salman Khurshid, appearing for the Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha, argued that India prefers a “salad bowl” approach, signifying a multicultural society, as opposed to a “melting pot” approach that aims to create a single identity. He added that Assam has a history of migration over centuries, resulting in a “variety of cultures, racial origins, identities, languages, and dialects,” as per his written submissions. He argued that Section 6A puts a stop to further migration while maintaining cultural diversity.[4]

Impacts

The granting of citizenship under Section 6A has come under scrutiny since it is thought to have contributed to the influx of undocumented migrants entering Assam from Bangladesh. The unintended consequence of promoting illegal immigration and its subsequent impact on the demographic mix of the state are concerns that have been voiced. Petitioners contend that by granting citizenship to the migrant community, Section 6A would unintentionally encourage more migration, worsening demographic issues.

Petitioners express concerns regarding Section 6A’s cultural impact in addition to legal and constitutional issues. They contend that the advantages given to immigrants from other countries between 1966 and 1971 caused a large-scale demographic change that impacted Assamese culture. According to the petitioners, Section 6A may have contributed to a drastic shift in the population with ramifications for culture and “cementing an illegality” by acknowledging these migrants as citizens.[5]

 Scrutiny of Section 6A

Section 6A of the Citizenship Act has a complicated legal and constitutional landscape that highlights the delicate balance between local concerns and more general constitutional norms, especially when it comes to its application in Assam. Section 6A, which addresses particular migratory difficulties in the state, was introduced with the support of the Assam Accord of 1985, a historic tripartite accord. Nonetheless, there have been objections raised regarding its compliance with the provisions of the constitution, including Articles 6 and 14. It is important to consider whether citizenship standards are uniform, especially for individuals who migrated during the division, in light of the argument that Section 6A may violate Article 6. The distinct deadline set by Section 6A for Assam, which deviates from the national standard, puts regional needs and the larger constitutional framework at odds.  

Conclusion

The constitutional issues brought up against Section 6A highlight the necessity for a sophisticated approach that balances regional nuances with the fundamental principles of equality and consistency in citizenship rules, even if the Assam Accord aimed to address unique concerns in the state. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming proceedings would be crucial in deciding the future of Section 6A and whether it is constitutionally permissible in India. The decision’s ruling will probably have a significant impact on how complicated matters like citizenship and migration are handled when striking a delicate balance between regional uniqueness and constitutional uniformity.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Rupika Goundla

References

Drishti IAS. “Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.” Accessed December 31, 2023. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/section-6a-of-the-citizenship-act-1955.   

NDTV.com. “Assam Illegal Immigrants: Supreme Court Examines Validity of Citizenship Act Section 6A.” Accessed December 31, 2023. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/assam-illegal-immigrants-supreme-court-examines-validity-of-citizenship-act-section-6a-4634738.

guwahatiplus.com. “Supreme Court Hearing Examines Section 6A’s Impact on Assam Accord.” Accessed December 31, 2023. https://guwahatiplus.com/assam/supreme-court-hearing-examines-section-6as-impact-on-assam-accord.

www.ETGovernment.com. “SC to Examine Validity of Citizenship Act’s Section 6A on Dec 5 – et Government.” ETGovernment.com. Accessed December 31, 2023. https://government.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/governance/sc-to-examine-validity-of-citizenship-acts-section-6a-on-dec-5/105716583.

shanKariasacademy. “Section 6A of Citizenship Act | GS II | Current Affairs.” www.iasparliament.com. Accessed December 31, 2023. https://www.iasparliament.com/current-affairs/gs-ii/section-6a-of-citizenship-act.

Supreme Court Observer. “Section 6A of the Citizenship Act | Day 4: Supreme Court Reserves Judgement.” Accessed December 31, 2023. https://www.scobserver.in/reports/section-6a-of-the-citizenship-act-day-4-supreme-court-reserves-judgement/. 

[1] www.ETGovernment.com. “SC to Examine Validity of Citizenship Act’s Section 6A on Dec 5 – et Government.” ETGovernment.com. Accessed December 31, 2023. https://government.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/governance/sc-to-examine-validity-of-citizenship-acts-section-6a-on-dec-5/105716583.

[2] shanKariasacademy. “Section 6A of Citizenship Act | GS II | Current Affairs.” www.iasparliament.com. Accessed December 31, 2023. https://www.iasparliament.com/current-affairs/gs-ii/section-6a-of-citizenship-act.

[3] NDTV.com. “Assam Illegal Immigrants: Supreme Court Examines Validity of Citizenship Act Section 6A.” Accessed December 31, 2023. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/assam-illegal-immigrants-supreme-court-examines-validity-of-citizenship-act-section-6a-4634738.

[4] Supreme Court Observer. “Section 6A of the Citizenship Act | Day 4: Supreme Court Reserves Judgement.” Accessed December 31, 2023. https://www.scobserver.in/reports/section-6a-of-the-citizenship-act-day-4-supreme-court-reserves-judgement/. 

[5] Drishti IAS. “Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.” Accessed December 31, 2023. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/section-6a-of-the-citizenship-act-1955.