Why is it in the news?

• In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which grants citizenship to immigrants who entered Assam before March 24, 1971.
• A five-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, delivered the verdict, with four judges forming the majority and Justice JB Pardiwala issuing a dissenting opinion.

Background of Section 6A

• Section 6A was incorporated into the Citizenship Act in 1985 as part of the Assam Accord, signed between the Rajiv Gandhi government and the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) after a six-year agitation against Bangladeshi migration into Assam.
• The Assam Accord established January 1, 1966, as the base cut-off date for identifying “foreigners,” while allowing for the regularization of individuals who arrived between that date and March 24, 1971.

Provisions of Section 6A

• The provision stipulates that all persons of “Indian origin” who entered Assam before January 1, 1966, and have been “ordinarily resident” there since are deemed Indian citizens.
• Those who entered after January 1, 1966, but before March 24, 1971, can register as citizens if detected as foreigners, although they cannot vote for ten years following registration. Anyone entering after March 24, 1971, is classified as an illegal immigrant.
• This ruling may affect the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, following a 2019 ruling by a two-judge bench that allowed the NRC to be updated, contingent on related petitions’ outcomes.

Court’s Decision

• The majority opinion asserted that Parliament has the authority to grant citizenship under different conditions, provided the differentiation is reasonable.
• The judges justified the unique migrant situation in Assam, stating that such provisions do not violate Article 14, which guarantees equality.
• CJI Chandrachud noted that Assam’s immigration challenges were more significant than those in other states, thereby justifying the law’s specific application.
• Both the majority and CJI Chandrachud concluded that petitioners did not prove that the influx of migrants impacted the cultural rights of existing Assamese citizens, as guaranteed by Article 29(1).

Dissenting Opinion

• Justice Pardiwala dissented, arguing that Section 6A is unconstitutional due to “temporal unreasonableness.” He criticized the provision for lacking a time limit for identifying foreigners, undermining the government’s responsibility to identify immigrants.
• He also noted that immigrants have no means to voluntarily disclose their status, potentially delaying their identification and adjudication.

Reasons for Challenging Section 6A

• Petitioners challenged Section 6A, claiming its different cut-off date is discriminatory and violates Article 14, as it establishes a different standard for citizenship in Assam compared to the rest of India, which uses July 1948 as the cut-off date.
• They argued that the provision jeopardizes the rights of indigenous people in Assam by altering the demographic landscape and negatively impacting their economic and political well-being.

Defending Section 6A

• In defense of Section 6A, the Centre cited Article 11 of the Constitution, which empowers Parliament to regulate citizenship matters. It argued that this provision allows for laws tailored to specific situations without violating equality rights.
• Other respondents, including the NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace, contended that striking down Section 6A would render many current residents stateless after having enjoyed citizenship for over 50 years.
• They emphasized that demographic changes in Assam were influenced by geopolitical events prior to the introduction of Section 6A, affirming the state’s long-standing diversity.