The Supreme Court in a 4:1 majority ruling upheld the constitutionality of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which will resonate for years to come. Section 6A was introduced after the Assam Accord and since then has been at the heart of intense legal battles, protests, and political debates concerning Assam’s demographic changes and the definition of Citizenship in India.
This judgment is a watershed moment in Indian Constitutional Law, shaping the discourse on immigration, equality, and the future of citizenship across the country, raising critical questions. How does the Constitution balance the need to preserve regional identities with protecting national integrity? Can differential treatment in citizenship law survive the rigorous test of constitutional scrutiny?
In this article, we have delved deeper into examining the origins of Section 6A with the Assam Accord in the backdrop, the Supreme Court’s reasoning and its intersection with the NRC, and what this judgment holds for citizenship controversies in India.
A Decades-Old Controversy Comes to a Head
Controversies around Section 6A are not a recent occurrence, and they trace their roots to the post-independence influx of migrants from erstwhile East Pakistan into Assam, especially during the Bangladesh Liberation War period. Post-war migration triggered a demographic changes in Assam, leading to a series of protests for protection of Assamese identity in the region. The Government of India here brought in the Assam Accord, which aimed to resolve these tensions, with a key component ‘Section 6A’, an addition to the Citizenship Act that laid down specific cut-off dates for granting citizenship to migrants in Assam. This Section was intended to provide a legal framework for determining who could be recognized as a citizen in Assam, thereby addressing the fears of Assamese communities regarding cultural erosion.[i]
However, over the years, Section 6A has faced mounting legal challenges. Critics argued that is in direct violation of the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14, by creating a separate, Assam-specific citizenship framework that was not applicable elsewhere in India. Some also claimed that Section 6A exacerbated ethnic tensions by granting citizenship to a large number of migrants, further threatening the socio-political fabric of Assam.
Such protest and claims along with the politics in the Assam region led to a series of petitions before the Supreme Court, culminating in the recent judgment. The Supreme Court’s ruling has finally settled the legal questions, added to the existing citizenship and constitutional debate, and that will likely shape the future of Indian Citizenship laws for years to come.
Questioning the Constitutionality of Section 6A
Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is a special provision that establishes two key timeframes for determining who qualifies as a Citizen of India – migrants who entered Assam before 1st January 1966 are automatically deemed Indian citizens if they have been residing in Assam continuously. Further, migrants who entered between 1st January 1966 and 25th March 1971 are required to register themselves as foreigners, but they are allowed to remain in Assam. After ten years of continuous residence from the date of registration, the second timeframe migrants are eligible to apply for Indian citizenship too.
The cut-off date of 25th March 1971, is significant because it marks the day before the Bangladesh Liberation War officially began, resulting in a mass exodus of refugees into neighboring Assam. The Assam Accord and Section 6A were meant to provide a solution that balanced humanitarian concerns for these refugees with the legitimate demands of the indigenous Assamese population to safeguard their cultural and demographic integrity. However, the constitutional validity of Section 6A has been in question since its enactment. The primary question for discussion is whether it violates the right to equality under Article 14.
Supreme Court’s Ruling: A 4:1 Majority Upholds Section 6A
The majority in the ruling emphasized that Assam’s circumstances warranted a special legal framework for citizenship. The Supreme Court pointed out that the reasonable classification test was satisfied as the differential treatment of Assam under Section 6A was rooted in historical, political, and social necessity, as held in Nagaraj v Union of India.The Court also relied on the landmark ruling of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India,in which the Supreme Court upheld reservations in public employment as a reasonable classification under Article 14. On the same line, in the Section 6A case, the Supreme Court ruled that Assam’s situation, shaped by large-scale immigration, required a different approach to citizenship, and this did not violate the right to equality.
The Supreme Court also referred to Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, which expanded the scope of Article 21, ensuring that laws restricting personal liberty must meet a standard of fairness, reasonableness, and justness. In upholding Section 6A, the Court found that it did not arbitrarily deprive people of their rights and was designed to protect Assam’s unique cultural identity.
The dissenting judge, Justice Pardiwala, however, held a different view. Arguing that Section 6A violated Article 14, the dissent questioned whether the special treatment for Assam created inequality by offering a more lenient path to citizenship for certain migrants, as held in Kedar Nath Bajoria v State of West Bengal.The dissent warned that this provision might undermine the uniform application of laws across the country and set a dangerous precedent for regional exceptions.
Section 6A and the National Register of Citizens (NRC)
The debate over Section 6A became even more pronounced during the NRC exercise in Assam, which was meant to identify illegalimmigrants – but the final list left out over 1.9 million people, leading to widespread legal challenges. Section 6A provides the cut-off date of 25th March 1971 for determining citizenship, which became the basis for the NRC process. However, the final list excludes many, despite many of them having lived in Assam for decades, which has led to serious concerns about statelessness and the legal battle for those left out.
The relationship between Section 6A and the NRC can best understood in light of the Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India case. In this case, the Supreme Court repealed the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 declaring it unconstitutional because identifying and deporting illegal immigrants from Assam was difficult due to lenient provisions. The Court recognized the severe demographic impact that unchecked immigration had on Assam and stressed the need for stricter identification measures. The Sonowal judgment directly influenced the NRC process by setting the stage for a more stringent determination of citizenship. However, the NRC’s implementation has faced its own set of legal challenges, with Section 6A continuing to provide the legal framework for determining citizenship rights in Assam.
Aftermath of the Judgement
The Section 6A judgment reinforces that citizenship laws can vary based on regional and historical contexts, as long as they meet the reasonable classification test, as laid down in State of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar. This could open the door to future legislation addressing specific immigration concerns in other border states or regions with unique demographic challenges.
By upholding Section 6A, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that equality under Article 14 does not mean absolute uniformity. This echoes past decisions in which the Court upheld reservations for certain communities as a legitimate means of achieving substantive equality. The ruling could influence future constitutional challenges that question region-specific laws or policies and reservations.
The ruling strengthens the legal foundation for the NRC process in Assam. However, it also raises concerns about how the NRC will be implemented nationwide, should the government pursue this path. The exclusion of millions from the NRC has already led to mass legal battles, and the Supreme Court’s endorsement of Section 6A may fuel further litigation as the government grapples with the fallout from the NRC process.
As the implications of this judgment continue to unfold, it will remain a central ruling for future discussions on the evolution of Indian citizenship law, the role of the NRC, and the delicate balance between equality and regional autonomy within the framework of the Constitution of India.
[i] Sanjib Baruah, India Against Itself: Assam and the Politics of Nationality (University of Pennsylvania Press 1999)
This blog is written by Mohd Ayaz Raza, Undergraduate, Faculty of Law, Integral University, Lucknow and Mohd Rameez Raza, Senior Consultant, Nyayvid Partners, Lucknow.