The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI File Photo
Section 6A of the Citizenship Act was introduced in the Constitution as per the Assam Accord signed between the Rajiv Gandhi government and the All Assam Students Union AASU in 1985. Sumir Karmakar explains the political backdrop that led to the insertion of the 'special provision' in the statute book and the import of the apex court’s order upholding the validity of 6A.
What is Section 6A of the Citizenship Act?
Section 6A provides the legal provisions in the constitutional framework to grant or deny Indian citizenship to migrants who are residents of Assam but have migrated from specified territories, including Bangladesh, during a stipulated period. The section lays down that migrants who came to Assam on or after January 1, 1966, but before March 25, 1971, and have since resided in the state, would be deemed as Indian citizens and must register themselves under Section 18.
When and why was Section 6A inserted into the Citizenship Act?
Section 6A was inserted in 1985, after the signing of the Assam Accord following the six-year-long Assam Agitation or anti-foreigners movement (1979-1985). The AASU and others, who led the Assam Agitation, demanded the detection and deportation of the 'illegal migrants' from Bangladesh who had crossed over since the Bangladesh liberation war posed a threat to the identity and culture of the indigenous Assamese people.
The Assam Accord, signed by the then PM Rajiv Gandhi and AASU leader Prafulla Kumar Mahanta agreed to detect and deport the foreigners with March 24, 1971, as the cut-off date.
Why was Section 6A challenged in the SC?
Petitioners including Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha and Assam Public Works, two NGOs, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 6A in 2012 questioning why Assam was singled out by adopting an 'unreasonable' cut-off date (March 24, 1971). They also argued whether the grant of citizenship to migrants from Bangladesh to Assam was within the legislative competence of Parliament under Article 11 of the Constitution. The matter was referred to the Constitution bench in 2014.
GoI’s stand of 6A
Though the union government admitted concerns over the influx of illegal immigrants, it maintained that the provision was confined to a specific period. And the law, if struck down, would not provide a solution to the problem of illegal immigration.
What did the Constitution bench of the SC say on the challenges?
Rejecting the petitions, the Supreme Court said, "Legislative objective of Section 6A was to balance the humanitarian needs of migrants of Indian origin and the impact of the migration on the economic and cultural needs of Indian States." The bench, however, acknowledged the concerns over illegal migration and called for stricter implementation of the laws against it.
Impact of the verdict on NRC exercise in Assam
The verdict is likely to give impetus to the updation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam as it settles the debate over the cut-off date for granting citizenship. The NRC, which began in 2013, in its first draft report submitted in 2018 had left out over 40 lakh out of 3.29 crore applicants. The number, however, came down to 19.06 lakh in the 'final draft' released in December 2021.
The NRC is also being updated under the supervision of the Supreme Court. More than Rs 1,600 crore have been spent but the exercise came to a standstill after several petitions were filed in the Supreme Court seeking re-verification of the applications. The petitioners claimed that the names of many foreigners were fraudulently included in the draft.
Demands for scrapping CAA
The SC order has also triggered demands for the scrapping of Citizenship Amendment Act CAA. AASU has argued that the changes brought in the CAA by the Modi government in 2019 violate section 6A upheld by the apex court. The CAA makes an exception in granting citizenship to migrants of six religious minority communities - Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian - from Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Bangladesh.