SC upholds validity of Sec 6A of Citizenship Act recognizing Assam accord

The Supreme Court, on Thursday, October 17 upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955 by 4:1 majority.
The section, which recognized the Assam Accord, allows foreign migrants of Indian origin – who came to Assam between January 1, 1966 and March 25, 1971 – to seek Indian citizenship. Section 6A of the Citizenship Act was inserted through an amendment in 1985 in furtherance of the Assam Accord.
The five-Judge Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra delivered the judgment, legal news agency LiveLaw reported. Justice Pardiwala gave a dissenting judgment to hold Section 6A as unconstitutional.
“Mere presence of different ethnic groups in a state does not mean infringement of Article 29(1),” the Supreme Court said. 
CJI Chandrachud in his judgment said that the Assam Accord was a political solution to the problem of illegal migration and Section 6A was the legislative solution, the report said. The majority held that the Parliament had the legislative competence to enact the provision, he said.
The top court held that Section 6A was enacted to balance the humanitarian concerns with the need to protect the local population. It considered the ‘singling out of Assam’ from other states that shared a larger border with the Bangladesh as rational, as the number of immigrants among the local population in Assam was higher there than in other border states.
The impact of 40 lakh migrants in Assam is greater than the 57 lakh migrants in West Bengal because of the land area in Assam is much less compared to West Bengal, observed the apex court, reported Live Law.
Certain indigenous groups of Assam had challenged the provision under Section 6A, contending that it legalised illegal infiltration of foreign migrants from Bangladesh. The petitioners contended it violates the essential fabric of the Constitution as provided under Preamble, namely, fraternity, citizenship, unity, and integrity of India. The Section also violates fundamental rights as provided under Articles 14, 21, and 29, according to the petition.
Justice Kant, however, observed that the petitioners ‘have not been able to show any impact on Assamese culture and language due to immigration’, LiveLaw reported. He also rejected the petitioners argument that Section 6A suffered from ‘manifest arbitrariness’ because of the March 25, 1971 cut off date.
Section 6A of the Citizenship Act was inserted through an amendment 1985 following the Assam Accord, an agreement entered into between the Government of India and the leaders of the Assam movement who had protested for the removal of illegal migrants who entered Assam from Bangladesh.
Under the provision, only those foreign nationals who entered Assam before March 25, 1971, could seek Indian citizenship.  Those arriving after March 25, 1971 cut off date, are to be detected and deported.
Section 6A has been controversial, with its constitutionality being challenged in the Supreme Court due to demographic concerns.
The five bench judge also held that the cut-off date of March 25,1971 was rational, as it was the date when the Bangladesh Liberation War ended.
“The objective of the provision must be seen in the backdrop of the Bangladesh war. The majority was of the view that Section 6A was “neither over-inclusive nor under-inclusive,” the Supreme Court ruled in the matter, reported Live Law.