Supreme Court Upholds Section 6A of the Citizenship Act: A Detailed Analysis of 2024 INSC 789

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 17 October 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 789
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI; Justice Surya Kant; Justice J B Pardiwala; Justice M M Sundresh; Justice Manoj Misra. (Majority opinion by CJI Chandrachud, with separate concurring opinions from Justice Kant and Justice Pardiwala).

Is Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam, constitutional? This question has been a subject of intense legal debate. The Supreme Court of India has recently addressed this in a landmark judgment. This post will delve into the details of the judgment, exploring its background, the issues raised, the arguments presented, and the court’s final decision.

Case Background

The case revolves around the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which was introduced in 1985 to grant citizenship to specific categories of migrants from Bangladesh to Assam. The petitioners challenged this provision, arguing that it violates several articles of the Constitution. The provision classifies migrants into two categories based on their date of entry into Assam: those who entered before January 1, 1966, and those who entered between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971.

Section 6A(2) states that those who entered before January 1, 1966, and have been ordinarily resident in Assam since their entry are deemed citizens of India from January 1, 1966. Section 6A(3) outlines a registration process for those who entered between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971. These individuals must register themselves as foreigners, have their names deleted from electoral rolls for ten years, and then, after ten years, are deemed citizens of India.

The petitioners, through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenged Section 6A, arguing that it violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution. They sought to declare Section 6A as unconstitutional.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following key legal provisions:

• Article 5 of the Constitution: Defines citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution.
• Article 6 of the Constitution: Addresses citizenship for those who migrated from Pakistan to India.
• Article 7 of the Constitution: Addresses citizenship for those who migrated from India to Pakistan.
• Article 11 of the Constitution: Grants Parliament the power to make laws regarding citizenship.
• Article 14 of the Constitution: Guarantees equality before the law.
• Article 29(1) of the Constitution: Protects the interests of minorities with distinct language, script, or culture.
• Article 355 of the Constitution: Outlines the Union’s duty to protect states from external aggression and internal disturbance.
• Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955: Special provisions regarding citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord.
• Foreigners Act, 1946: Provides the framework for dealing with foreigners in India.
• Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964: Establishes tribunals to determine if a person is a foreigner.

Arguments

The petitioners argued that Section 6A is unconstitutional for the following reasons:

• It violates Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution by prescribing different cut-off dates for citizenship.
• It violates Article 14 by singling out Assam and creating an unreasonable classification.
• It violates Article 29(1) by diluting the Assamese cultural identity.
• It violates Article 355 by not curbing illegal immigration, which amounts to external aggression.
• It lacks a mechanism to determine who is “ordinarily resident” in Assam.

The respondents (Union of India) argued that:

• Section 6A was enacted under the powers granted by Article 11 of the Constitution and does not violate Articles 6 and 7.
• The cut-off dates are reasonable and based on the Assam Accord.
• Section 6A is a special provision for Assam, considering the unique circumstances of the state.
• It does not violate Article 14 as it is a reasonable classification.
• It does not violate Article 29(1) as it does not prevent the conservation of Assamese culture.
• Article 355 does not create an independent ground to challenge the constitutional validity of a law.

The arguments were further categorized into sub-submissions, which are summarized below:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the grant of citizenship to migrants from Bangladesh to Assam was within the legislative competence of Parliament under Article 11 of the Constitution.
2. Whether Section 6A of the Citizenship Act adopts unreasonable cut-off dates and singles out the State of Assam, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. Whether Section 6A of the Citizenship Act can be regarded as violative of Article 355 on the ground that the provision does not curb undocumented immigration, which amounts to ‘external aggression.’
4. Whether Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is violative of Article 29(1) of the Constitution on the ground that the Assamese cultural identity is lost as a direct consequence of granting citizenship to migrants from Bangladesh residing in Assam.
5. Whether Section 6A(3) of the Citizenship Act is unconstitutional on the ground of temporal unreasonableness.
6. Whether Section 6A(2) of the Citizenship Act is unconstitutional on the ground that it neither provides a method for implementation nor empowers the executive to implement the provisions.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment addressed each submission made by the parties and analyzed the authorities cited.

The Court also cited the following authorities to support its reasoning:

• Izhar Ahmed v. Union of India: To support the legislative competence of the Parliament.
• State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar: To define the scope of reasonable classification.
• Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India: To discuss the scope of Article 355 and the impact of migration.
• Joseph Shine v. Union of India: To define the principle of manifest arbitrariness.
• State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills: To clarify the scope of under-inclusive legislation.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of legal, historical, and practical considerations. The Court emphasized that Section 6A was a result of a political settlement (Assam Accord) and that it was enacted to address a specific situation in Assam. The Court also recognized that the Constitution provides Parliament with broad powers regarding citizenship.

The Court’s reasoning also reflected a balance between the humanitarian needs of migrants and the concerns of the local population of Assam.

The Court’s logical reasoning for each issue can be summarized as follows:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that:

• Section 6A of the Citizenship Act does not amend Articles 6 and 7.
• Article 11 is not a non-obstante clause but clarifies the scope of legislative power.
• Section 6A is a reasonable classification and does not violate Article 14.
• Section 6A does not violate Article 355.
• Section 6A does not violate Article 29(1).
• Section 6A(3) is not unconstitutional on the ground of temporal unreasonableness.
• Section 6A(2) is not unconstitutional for not prescribing a procedure for registration.

The Court also analyzed how each submission made by the parties was treated:

The Court concluded that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutionally valid.

Concurring Opinions

While the majority opinion was delivered by CJI Chandrachud, Justices Surya Kant and J B Pardiwala provided separate concurring opinions.

Justice Surya Kant’s Concurring Opinion: Justice Kant agreed with the majority opinion, emphasizing the importance of the Assam Accord and the unique circumstances of Assam. He highlighted that the cut-off dates in Section 6A were a result of a political settlement and that the provision was not arbitrary.

Justice J B Pardiwala’s Concurring Opinion: Justice Pardiwala also concurred with the majority opinion. He focused on the legislative competence of Parliament and the principle of reasonable classification. He reiterated that Section 6A was a special provision for Assam and that it did not violate any constitutional provisions. He also emphasized that Section 6A was not a violation of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Key Takeaways

The key takeaways from the Supreme Court’s judgment are:

• Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutionally valid.
• Parliament has the legislative competence to enact laws on citizenship under Article 11.
• The cut-off dates in Section 6A are reasonable and based on the Assam Accord.
• Section 6A is a special provision for Assam and does not violate Article 14.
• Article 355 is not an independent ground to challenge the validity of a law.
• Section 6A does not violate Article 29(1) or the basic structure of the Constitution.

Implications

The Supreme Court’s judgment has significant implications for citizenship law in India. It reaffirms the legislative power of Parliament to make laws regarding citizenship, even if they are specific to certain regions or groups. The judgment also highlights the importance of political settlements and historical context in legal interpretation.

The judgment also implies that the Union Government has the power to make laws for specific regions based on special circumstances.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in 2024 INSC 789 upholds the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The Court has clarified that Parliament has the legislative competence to enact citizenship laws and that Section 6A is a reasonable classification based on the Assam Accord. The judgment has far-reaching implications for citizenship law and reaffirms the balance between legislative power and constitutional rights.