IN RE: Section 6a of the Citizenship Act 1955

Introduction 

This landmark case addresses the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which was enacted to provide legislative effect to the Assam Accord signed in 1985. The provision created a special citizenship regime for the state of Assam to deal with the influx of immigrants following the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971.

Facts 

• Following the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971, there was a significant influx of immigrants into Assam, leading to widespread protests by various groups against this migration. 
• On 15 August 1985, the Assam Accord was signed between the Union Government and the protesting groups to resolve the immigration issue in Assam. 
• To implement the Assam Accord, Parliament enacted Section 6A in the Citizenship Act in 1985, creating special provisions for citizenship in Assam. 
• Under Section 6A, immigrants of Indian origin who entered Assam before 1 January 1966 were automatically recognized as Indian citizens. 
• Those who arrived between 1 January 1966 and 24 March 1971 were eligible for citizenship subject to specific conditions: detection as a 'foreigner' by the Foreigners Tribunal, continuing to be an ordinary resident of Assam, and deletion from electoral rolls for ten years. 
• All immigrants entering after 24 March 1971 were considered illegal and subject to deportation. 
• Several writ petitions were filed under Article 32 challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6A on grounds of lack of parliamentary power and violation of fundamental rights. 
• On 17 December 2014, a Division Bench referred the matter to a Constitution Bench due to important constitutional questions involved. 
• A five-judge Constitution Bench heard the case with former Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant, Justice M.M. Sundresh, Justice Jamshed B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Mishra. 
• The petitioners argued that Section 6A was discriminatory as it applied only to Assam and violated the principle of equality under Article 14. 

Issues 

• Whether Parliament has the power under Articles 6, 7, and 11 of the Constitution to enact Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. 
• Whether Section 6A violates the right to equality under Article 14 by creating a special citizenship regime only for Assam. 
• Whether Section 6A violates the protection of minority interests under Article 29 and affects the indigenous people of Assam. 
• Whether Section 6A violates Article 355 regarding the Union's duty to protect states from external aggression. 
• Whether the cut-off dates and procedures under Section 6A are arbitrary and unreasonable. 
• Whether indefinite delays in implementation render Section 6A constitutionally invalid. 

Court's Observations 

Parliamentary Power to Enact Section 6A: 

• The majority held that Articles 5-11 of Part II only prescribe citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution, while post-commencement citizenship is governed by Parliamentary law under Article 246 read with Entry 17 of List I. 
• Parliament has plenary power to make laws on citizenship, and Section 6A aligns with the fundamental purpose of Articles 6 and 7 which seek to provide citizenship to individuals of Indian origin affected by political disturbances. 
• Justice Pardiwala dissented, arguing that Section 6A differs from Articles 6 and 7 as it places the burden on the State rather than individuals to establish citizenship and lacks a clear cut-off date for applications. 

No Violation of Article 14: 

• The Court held that Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia with rational connection to the legislative purpose. 
• Assam's unique situation with high influx of migrants and small geographical area justified differential treatment compared to other states. 
• The federal structure allows separate treaty arrangements with states, and Section 6A was enacted to implement the Assam Accord, providing sufficient justification for state-specific legislation. 

Section 6A is Not Arbitrary: 

• The majority found historical and legitimate reasons for different cut-off dates: 1 January 1966 marked when migrants were already included in electoral rolls, and 25 March 1971 marked the beginning of Bangladesh Liberation War and grant of Bangladeshi citizenship. 
• The term "ordinary residence" was held to be sufficiently defined and not unconstitutionally vague. 
• Justice Pardiwala dissented, arguing that the lack of time limits for identification of immigrants, inability for voluntary citizenship applications, and vague residence requirements made Section 6A arbitrary and unreasonable. 

Protection of Indigenous Rights under Article 29: 

• The majority acknowledged Assam's distinct language, culture, and script deserving protection under Article 29(1). 
• However, Section 6A provides for timely detection and deportation of illegal immigrants, so the challenge should be against non-implementation rather than constitutionality. 
• The mere presence of different ethnic groups cannot violate Article 29(1) rights, and constitutional provisions exist to protect distinct cultures. 

No Breach of Article 355: 

• The Court recognized the Union's duty under Article 355 to protect states from external aggression and internal disturbance. 
• However, Section 6A provides a regulated approach for citizenship rather than promoting unrestricted migration, and cannot amount to external aggression. 

Directions for Implementation: 

• The Court issued specific directions for better enforcement: following deportation guidelines from Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005), integrating the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act 1950 with Section 6A, and enhancing statutory framework and tribunals for timely identification of illegal immigrants. 

Conclusion 

By a 4:1 majority, the Constitution Bench upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A, with Justice Pardiwala dissenting and declaring it unconstitutional with prospective effect to protect those who had already benefited from the provision.