In a 4:1 majority verdict, Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act of 1955 that deals with granting citizenship to immigrants covered by the Assam Accord.
A five-member Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud ruled that Section 6A falls within the bounds of the Constitution and is a “valid piece of legislation”. The bench authored three separate judgments, one by CJI and a consolidated one by justice Surya Kant. The dissenting judgment was authored by justice JB Pardiwala.
His judgment added: “The two yardsticks employed in Section 6A, that is migration to Assam and the cut-off date of 24 March 1971 are reasonable. Though other states share a greater border with Bangladesh, the impact of migration in Assam in terms of numbers and resources is greater. Thus, the yardstick of migration to Assam is reasonable.”
CJI held that the claim of the petitioner that “Section 6A is unconstitutional because instead of preventing migration to Assam, it incentivizes migrants in other states to come to Assam to secure citizenship through Section 6A is erroneous”. The CJI ruled that “Section 6A(3) cannot be held unconstitutional on the ground of temporal unreasonableness”.
In a concurring judgment, authored by justice Kant and concurred by justices MM Sundresh and Manoj Misra, SC ruled that Section 6A “falls within the bounds of the Constitution”. The judgment said that Section 6A does not infringe upon any Articles of the Constitution nor clashes with established principles of international law.
The judgment authored by justice Kant said “due to porous borders and incomplete fencing, this unceasing migration imposes a significant challenge”.
The judgment recorded the fact that Centre was unable to provide precise figures of number of illegal immigrants after March 1971 “due to the clandestine nature of such inflows”.
SC said “this underscores the necessity for more robust policy measures to curb illicit movements. Additionally, it was disclosed that approximately 97,714 cases are pending before the Foreigner Tribunals and nearly 850 km of border remain unfenced or inadequately monitored”.
The judgment held “the intention of Section 6A, i.e., to restrict illegal immigration post 1971, has also not been given proper effect”.
Hence, the bench has directed that “immigrants who entered the State of Assam prior to 1966 are deemed citizens; (ii) immigrants who entered between the cut off dates of January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, can seek citizenship subject to the eligibility conditions prescribed in Section 6A (3); and (iii) immigrants who entered Assam on or after March 25, 1971, are not entitled to protection conferred vide Section 6A and consequently, they are declared to be illegal immigrants”.
SC held that “statutory machinery and tribunals tasked with the identification and detection of illegal immigrants or foreigners in Assam are inadequate and not proportionate to the requirement of giving time-bound effect to the legislative object of Section 6A”. It warned that “the implementation of immigration and citizenship legislations cannot be left to the mere wish and discretion of the authorities, necessitating constant monitoring by this Court”. For this purpose, SC directed that the matter be placed before the CJI “for constituting a bench to monitor the implementation of the directions”.
