Introduction
The Supreme Court on October 17, 2024, gave its verdict in In Re: Section 6A of The Citizenship Act, 1955 marking a pivotal moment in its interpretation of Article 29(1). While the case primarily focused on the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, a key provision granting citizenship to a specific class of migrants from Bangladesh to Assam, one of the fundamental challenges raised was, whether the section violated Article 29(1) of the Constitution. The blog asserts that the judgment not only upholds the constitutional framework but also fortifies the ideals of a multicultural, pluralistic nation by conserving the diverse cultures that make up India. In this analysis, the author looks into how the Supreme Court balanced the competing interests of cultural preservation and national integration, using Article 29(1) as the interpretative anchor.
Section 6A of The Citizenship Act, 1955: The backdrop
Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 was enacted in response to the Assam Accord of 1985, an agreement between the Government of India and the student leaders of the Assam Movement. The Assam Movement, which began in 1979, was led by the All Assam Students Union and the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad. It primarily sought to address the concerns of Assamese citizens over the large influx of migrants from Bangladesh, which they feared would impact population balance, economy, and cultural identity. The section restricts the grant of citizenship to Migrants in Assam depending upon their date of entry with March 25, 1971 as the final cut-off date.
Article 29(1): Safeguarding Cultural Diversity
Article 29() Article 29 of the Indian constitution is designed to protect the cultural and educational rights of Indian citizens. The article aims to protect the cultural diversity of India by protecting distinct cultural, linguistic and educational practices.. Article 29(1) specifically grants any section of Indian citizens with a distinct language, script, or culture the right to conserve their heritage. article 29A cursory reading of Article 29(1) will show that though the side note uses the term minority, the body of the article does not; rather, it uses the term ‘any section of the citizens,’ most likely to give a wider interpretation to the article. In Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society v. State of Gujarat the Supreme Court ruled that the majority community can also claim rights under article 29.
Article 29(1) of the Indian Constitution reflects the framers’ intention to recognise and protect India’s rich diversity, particularly in regions with unique linguistic, ethnic, and religious identities. This provision ensures that India does not marginalize or erase the identities of its constituent groups as it pursues national integration. The Supreme Court has rarely had the chance to engage in a detailed examination of Article 29(1). In prior cases namely St. Xavier’s College v. State of Gujarat (1974), T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) and Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) the Supreme Court consideration has been largely confined to addressing whether the rights conferred under Article 30, allowing the establishment of minority educational institutions, should be restricted solely to the preservation of language, script, or culture. The Supreme Court in the present case after scrutinising the historical case laws on article 29(1) decided to test the constitutionality of section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, on the following backdrop:
Right to Conserve Culture: Article 29(1) grants individuals or groups the right to actively preserve and protect their cultural identity, but this right can only be enforced if the impugned law impedes their ability to takes steps to safeguard their culture.Interpretation in a Pluralistic Context: This right must be understood in the context of India’s multicultural and diverse society. Any interpretation of Article 29(1) should recognise and ensure that cultural preservation occurs within the framework of a diverse and inclusive society.
Article 29 vis-a-vis Section 6A Citizenship act, 1955
The challenge to Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, was based on the argument that it permits people from Bangladesh who have a distinct culture to be ordinarily resident in Assam and secure citizenship, which infringes upon the right of the people of Assam to conserve their Assamese culture. Article 29(1) of the Indian constitution represents a recognition of the fact that actions on the part of people, have to be taken if they intend to protect their culture because there are instances found in societies where a lack of action on the part of the members of the community has led to the erosion of the culture, as laid down in Supriya Chakraborty vs Union Of India.
The court in its judgement questioned the reasoning of the challenge because, as a constitutional principle, the existence of diverse ethnic groups within a state does not automatically violate the right provided by Article 29(1). As previously discussed, Article 29(1) grants the right to ‘conserve,’ which includes the ability to actively safeguard one’s culture and language. As per the court petitioners must demonstrate that the law, by promoting the inclusion of various ethnic groups, directly hinders another group’s ability to preserve their culture or language. Furthermore, they must establish that this inability to protect the culture or language stems solely from the presence of other ethnic groups.
Additionally, the Indian Constitution includes specific safeguards for Assam’s cultural and linguistic heritage. The judgment emphasises that the Constitution provides special provisions for Assam, namely Articles 244A, 371B, the Sixth Schedule and Article 345which allows Assam’s Legislature to adopt Assamese as the official language, as formalised by the Assam Official Language Act of 1960. However, this Act also safeguards the use of other regional languages, like Bengali, particularly in areas where they were historically used. In essence, the point being made is that Assam’s cultural and linguistic diversity is robustly protected through a combination of constitutional provisions and legislative measures.
Change in population is equivalent to change in culture: Courts response
The judgement is not dismissive of the plight of the petitioners who have claimed change in demographics in Assam due to immigration, but that in itself is not sufficient actionable evidence of erosion of rights under Article 29(1). The court felt that if such an argument is accepted, then it would undermine the concept of fraternity envisioned by the framers of the Constitution and bring their concerns to fruition by endangering the unity of our diverse nation. It could potentially open the door for similar challenges from residents of other states, who might misuse Article 29(1) to undermine the right to reside and move freely under Article 19(1)(e), by invoking protection of their indigenous culture. Neither the Indian Constitution nor the Supreme Court views India as a collection of isolated, culturally homogeneous regions as laid down in landmark cases of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) where the Court asserted for a unified national identity, protecting the secular and inclusive nature of India whereas in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) the Court remarked that federalism and national unity support the interpretation that India’s cultural diversity coexists within a single national framework and in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) the Supreme Court rejected the view that any particular religion in India can exist in isolation Pluralism as the basis of Indian Constitutional Ethos
The Supreme court through “In Re: Section 6A of The Citizenship Act, 1955”re-affirmed India’s commitment towards pluralistic ethos. While the court agreed that Article 29(1) safeguards the rights of cultural groups, these rights also have reasonable restrictions along with other fundamental rights. The protection of the cultural rights of people under Article 29(1) must not come at the cost of denying basic human rights to migrants . This judgement would go far in affirming that multiple languages and traditions are not only tolerated but celebrated in India. The influx of migrants from Bangladesh, while challenging, does not automatically equate to cultural erosion. The judgment suggests that identities are dynamic and capable of evolving in response to social changes. By incorporating migrants into the fabric of Assam, the state can still retain its unique cultural identity. The judgement acts as a window into the mind of 21st century judiciary in its understanding of the concept of cultural preservation. It suggests that India’s identity is not a static construct but a constantly evolving one, capable of accommodating new influences while maintaining its core values.
The Future of Cultural Conservation in India
The 21st century has seen societies become more insular, making questions on citizenship, nationality and immigration more critical than ever before. In a world wherein self-interests are prioritized , this judgement serves as a reminder that the strength of a nation lies not in uniformity, but in its ability to embrace and conserve the many cultures that flourish within its borders. It offers an insightful analysis of how the Court has managed to uphold the cultural rights of Assamese people while promoting an inclusive understanding of citizenship and cultural preservation.
By upholding Section 6A, the Supreme Court indirectly promoted national harmony, reiterating that India is not a union of isolated, homogenous states, but a mosaic of diverse cultures. The judgement reflects a broader commitment to fraternity and the unity in diversity ethos of the Constitution. In doing so, the Court rejected exclusionary ideas that could lead to communal discord and destabilize the fabric of Indian federalism.
In essence, the Section 6A judgement aligns with the constitutional vision of “live and let live,” fostering inclusivity, coexistence, and mutual respect. It affirms that cultural conservation and national unity can coexist without sacrificing the rights and dignity of any particular group.
This blog is written by Aditya Kumar, LLM Student.