Introduction 

The Supreme Court recently delivered a landmark judgment on the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 in In Re: Section 6A Citizenship Act 1955. This provision, introduced in 1985 as part of the Assam Accord, was intended to address the citizenship status of migrants from Bangladesh who settled in Assam. The Assam Accord was an agreement between the Government of India and Assamese leaders aimed at maintaining Assamese identity while providing a pathway to citizenship for certain migrants. 

However, Section 6A has been contested in multiple petitions, with critics arguing that it violates the Constitution, particularly concerning Articles 6, 7, 11, 14, 29, and 355. The Court’s judgment, delivered by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr. D Y Chandrachud along with Justices Surya Kant and J B Pardiwala, ultimately upheld the validity of Section 6A in a unanimous decision. 

What were the Key Issues Examined by the Court? 

The Supreme Court examined several key questions related to Section 6A, including: 

• Legislative Competence: Did Parliament have the authority to enact Section 6A, which sets separate rules for citizenship in Assam with a unique cut-off date? 
• Right to Equality (Article 14): Is Section 6A unfair or discriminatory by applying only to Assam and not other states with similar migration issues? 
• Protection of Cultural Identity (Article 29): Does Section 6A threaten the cultural rights of Assamese citizens by enabling an increase in the migrant population? 
• Internal Security and Protection of the State (Article 355): Does the migration resulting from Section 6A pose a security risk or constitute an “internal disturbance”? 
• Procedural Fairness and Clarity: Does Section 6A include adequate and clear instructions for implementing citizenship registration? 

What were the Opinions of Judges? 

• Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud’s Majority Opinion 
  CJI Dr. D Y Chandrachud delivered the primary opinion upholding Section 6A’s constitutionality. His analysis focused on the following points: 
  • Legislative Competence (Article 11):  
    • CJI D Y Chandrachud emphasized that Parliament has the authority to make laws concerning citizenship under Article 11 of the Constitution. 
    • Article 11 explicitly states that nothing in the preceding provisions of the Constitution should “derogate from the power of Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship”. 
    • Thus, Parliament’s decision to enact a specific provision for Assam through Section 6A was within its powers and did not alter Articles 6 and 7, which primarily address citizenship at the time of the Constitution’s commencement. 
  • Equality and Fairness (Article 14):  
    • The CJI acknowledged the petitioners’ argument that Section 6A discriminated against Assam by applying different rules solely to the state.  
    • However, he noted that Assam’s unique demographic and migration history justified a separate provision.  
    • Assam had experienced a massive influx of migrants from Bangladesh due to historical and geopolitical factors, making it distinct from other Indian states.  
    • As such, the provisions of Section 6A, based on this unique context, were reasonable and did not amount to unequal treatment under Article 14. 
  • Protection of Cultural Rights (Article 29):  
    • A key concern among Assamese citizens was that Section 6A could dilute Assamese culture by granting citizenship to a significant number of migrants.  
    • CJI D Y Chandrachud found that Section 6A struck a balance by allowing only specific categories of longstanding residents to gain citizenship, thus respecting Assamese citizens’ right to preserve their cultural identity.  
    • He concluded that Section 6A does not violate Article 29’s cultural rights protections since it selectively grants citizenship based on conditions designed to maintain Assam’s cultural fabric. 
  • Security Concerns (Article 355):  
    • Article 355 mandates that the Union should protect states from “external aggression and internal disturbance.”  
    • The CJI recognized Assam’s demographic shifts and security concerns arising from unchecked migration.  
    • However, he found that Section 6A aimed to manage these issues in a structured manner, aligning with the Union’s duty to protect Assam.  
  • Procedural Fairness:  
    • Concerns were raised about the clarity and fairness of Section 6A’s citizenship registration process.  
    • CJI D Y Chandrachud found that although procedural improvements could benefit the implementation, existing rules provided a sufficient framework.  
    • The Foreigners Tribunals under the Foreigners Act and Foreigners (Tribunals) Order of 1964 offer a structured system to fairly evaluate citizenship applications under Section 6A. 
• Justice Surya Kant’s Concurring Opinion 
  • Justice Surya Kant agreed with CJI’s assessment of Section 6A’s constitutionality.  
  • He highlighted Assam’s historical and geographical uniqueness as a basis for special legislative treatment.  
  • Justice Surya Kant’s opinion reinforced that Assam’s demographic challenges due to migration warranted distinct provisions under Section 6A.  
  • He echoed the CJI’s stance that the provision does not violate Article 14’s equality principle, as the circumstances in Assam are fundamentally different from other states bordering Bangladesh. 
• Justice J.B. Pardiwala’s Concurring Opinion 
  • Justice J.B. Pardiwala also concurred with the majority opinion, supporting Chief Justice Chandrachud on all points.  
  • He emphasized the importance of balancing demographic management with Assamese cultural preservation.  
  • Justice J B Pardiwala agreed that Section 6A does not infringe on the cultural rights of Assamese citizens under Article 29, as it grants citizenship only to longstanding residents who fulfill specific criteria. 

What was the Final Ruling of the Court? 

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, finding it constitutional and essential to address Assam’s unique demographic and social issues stemming from historical migration. The Court ruled that: 

• Parliament has the legislative authority to enact Section 6A, as provided by Article 11 of the Constitution. 
• Section 6A does not violate the equality principle under Article 14, as Assam’s situation justifies different treatment. 
• Section 6A does not infringe upon cultural rights under Article 29, as it selectively grants citizenship while respecting Assamese cultural identity. 
• Section 6A aligns with Article 355, addressing security concerns related to migration in a structured way. 
• Procedural safeguards under Section 6A, including the Foreigners Tribunals, provide a fair system for citizenship claims. 

Conclusion 

By upholding Section 6A, the Court recognized the law’s importance in managing demographic changes, ensuring national security, and preserving Assamese cultural identity. While Section 6A was found to be constitutionally valid, the Court noted that ongoing review and adjustments might be needed to maintain this balance as Assam’s demographic and cultural landscape continues to evolve.