Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of Section 6A of Citizenship Act in 4:1 verdict

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act of 1955, which deals with the grant of Indian citizenship to immigrants who are covered by the Assam Accord. [In Re: Section 6A Citizenship Act 1955].As per Section 6A, people who entered India between January 1, 1966 and March 25, 1971 and have been living in Assam, will be allowed to register themselves as citizens of India..Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (6) and (7), all persons of Indian origin who came before the 1st day of January, 1966 to Assam from the specified territory (including such of those whose names were included in the electoral rolls used for the purposes of the General Election to the House of the People held in 1967) and who have been ordinarily resident in Assam since the dates of their entry into Assam shall be deemed to be citizens of India as from the 1st day of January, 1966..A Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra upheld the validity of the provision in a 4:1 majority, with Justice Pardiwala dissenting..Section 6A Citizenship Act no longer valid with efflux of time: Justice JB Pardiwala in dissenting verdict.While reading out his separate judgment concurring with the majority verdict penned by Justice Kant, the CJI said,"The Central government could have extended the application of the Act to other areas, but it was not done because it was unique to the magnitude of Assam."On the argument that the provision would infringe upon Article 29(1) of the Constitution, which safeguards the right of persons to have a distinct language, script or culture of their own and the right to conserve the same, the Court held,"...mere presence of different ethnic groups in a state does not mean infringement of Article 29(1)...petitioner has to prove that one ethnic group is not able to protect their own language and culture just because of the presence of another ethnic group.".While reading out the majority judgment, Justice Kant said,.We cannot allow one to choose their neighbours and it runs against their principle of fraternity. The principle is live and let live.Supreme Court.He went on to say,"We have also turned down the submission that Section 6A suffers from manifest arbitrariness. Cut-off date (March 25, 1971) prescribed also does not suffer from manifest arbitrariness. There are legible delineated conditions for migrants who came before 1966 and after 1966 and before 1971."Justice Kant said that none of the immigrants have found the term "ordinarily resident in Assam" used in Section 6A as being vague or arbitrary. Further,"On Article 29, we have held that petitioners have failed to show that there is a grave impact on Assamese culture, language...petitioners have not been able to show constitutionally valid impact on their culture due to the presence of any other group. We cannot accept that the Assamese right to vote has been impacted at all...".Summing up, he said,- Immigrants who entered Assam before January 1, 1966 are deemed to be Indian citizens.- Immigrants who entered Assam between January 1, 1966 and March 25, 1971 can seek citizenship, subject to eligibility conditions prescribed under Section 6A.- Immigrants who entered Assam on after March 25, 1971 are not entitled to protection under Section 6A and consequently, they are declared illegal immigrants..Today's outcome of the case is poised have a major bearing on the Assam National Register of Citizens (NRC) list..During the hearings in the case, the Court had noted that the provision was introduced partly to remedy the atrocities committed on the population of East Bengal in the aftermath of the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war.Therefore, it cannot be likened to an amnesty scheme for illegal immigrants in general, the Bench had orally observed. The CJI had observed that the validity of the Section cannot be determined by political developments that arose after its enactment.The Union Home Ministry had informed the Court that it would not be able to provide accurate data on the extent of illegal migration of foreigners into India since such migrations happen in a secretive manner.It had stated on affidavit that 14,346 foreign nationals were deported from the country between 2017 and 2022, and 17,861 migrants who had entered Assam between January 1966 and March 1971 were given Indian citizenship..Counsel who argued for petitions against Section 6ASenior Advocate Shyam Divan with Advocate Somiran Sharma appeared for the All Assam Ahom Association.Senior Advocate KN Choudhury appeared for the Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha.Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria appeared for one Pranab Mazumdar.Counsel who argued for parties in favour of Section 6AAttorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Advocate Sneha Kalita appeared for the Union government, and Advocate Shuvodeep Roy appeared for the State of Assam.Senior Advocate Malvika Trivedi appeared for the All Assam Students' Union.Senior Advocate Sanjay R Hegde with Advocate Adeel Ahmed appeared for the Assam Sankhyalaghu Sangram Parishad.Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid appearing for the Assam Jamiat Ulema.Senior Advocate CU Singh appeared for the Citizens for Justice and Peace. Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat with Advocates Hrishika Jain, Natasha Maheshwari, Aman Naqvi, Abhishek Babbar, Mreganka Kukreja, Harshit Anand, Prannv Dhawan, and Shadab Azhar appeared for the Social Justice Forum.Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind.Senior Advocate Indira Jaising with Advocate Paras Nath Singh appeared for the All Assam Minorities Students' Union..Other counselAdvocate Sahil Tagotra appeared for the Election Commission of India..[Read judgment]