SC Citizenship Act Section 6A case Highlights | Legislation valid at time of enactment but may become temporarily flawed with time, says Justice Pardiwala

A five-judge Constitution Bench to deliver judgment on the validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955

Understanding Section 6A in detail

Section 6A granted citizenship to all immigrants who entered Assam from Bangladesh before Jan 1, 1966. Further, the immigrants who entered Assam between Jan 1, 1966 and March 24, 1971 were considered as Indian citizens barring voting privileges for 10 years.

A Constitution bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices Surya Kant, M M Sundresh, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, had reserved the judgment in the matter on December 12, 2023

Judgment to be delivered today at 10:30 am

Five-judge bench upholds validity of Section 6A

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act related to the grant of Indian citizenship to illegal immigrants in Assam by a majority verdict of 4:1.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said the Assam Accord was a political solution to the problem of illegal migration.

Justices Surya Kant, M M Sundresh and Manoj Misra in their majority verdict held that Parliament had the legislative competence to enact the provision.

Justice Pardiwala gave a dissenting judgment to hold Section 6A as unconstitutional.

CJI observes that the magnitude of influx of migrants in Assam is 40 Lakhs which is higher in Assam as compared to other states considering the smaller land size

The objective of the provision (Section 6A) must be understood in the backdrop of the post-Bangladesh war: CJI

It can be deduced that Section 6A doesnt not contradict S.9 of the Citzenship Act: Justice Suryakant

Parliament had legislative powers to lay down the conditions under Section 6A and that cannot be controlled: Justice Suryakant

On taking oath of allegiance as a Citizen by Immigrants under Section 6A

The citizen shall only abide by the constitution of India Bench negatives the Petitioner's argument of compulsory oath of allegiance for citizens: Justice Suryakant

One of the causes of the concern for the Assam accord and student movement was the dilution of the rights: CJI

Central govt could have extended the application of act to other areas but it was not done because it was unique to the magnitude of Assam, says CJI

Section 6a is neither under inclusive nor over inclusive, says CJI

Cut off date of March 25,1971 was correct. migration from east pakistan into assam was greater than total migration to India post independence. it satisfies the condition of rationale yardstick. section 6a is neither under inclusive nor over inclusive.

It is duty of the union to safeguard states against external aggression: CJI

CJI: it is duty of the union to safeguard states against external aggression, reading duty of article 355 as a right would place emergency rights with citizens and courts which would be catastrophic. mere presence of different ethnic groups in a state does not mean infringement of article 29(1)... petitioner has to prove that one ethnic group is not able to protect their own language and culture just because of the presence of another ethnic group

Citizenship in india and section 6A cannot be held to be unconstitutional only because it does not prescribe a process of registration: CJI

CJI: The principle of temporal unreasonableness to a situation which has a reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved. registration is not the de facto model to confer citizenship in india and section 6A cannot be held to be unconstitutional only because it does not prescribe a process of registration. So I have also come to the conclusion that section 6A is valid

We cannot allow one to choose their neighbours and it runs against their principle of fraternity. The principle is live and let live: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice MM Sundresh

We have also upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A. We have turned down objections on delay laches and judicial review.

We have upheld the power of the parliament to legislate on this issue as well: Justice Kant

Section 6A provides citizenship for the first time migrants also and it is severable from the re migrant class. we have upheld the power of the parliament to legislate on this issue as well. Section 6A does not contradict section 9 of the citizenship act.

SC majority verdict holds that cut off date of March 25, 1971 for entry into Assam and granting citizenship is correct.

Justice Kant: We have also turned down the submission that 6A suffers from manifest arbitrariness

Cut off date prescribed also does not suffer from manifest arbitrariness. There is legible delineated conditions for migrants who came before 1966 and after 1966 and before 1971.

Mere presence of different ethnic groups in a state does not mean infringement of Article 29(1): SC on Section 6A of Citizenship Act.

Justice Kant: on article 29 we have held petitioners have failed to show that there is a grave impact on assamese culture, language. in fact it mandates detection and deportation of illegal immigrants who entered the territory of india after 1971 cut off date. petitioners have not been able to show constitutionally valid impact on their culture etc due to the presence of any other group. we cannot accept that assamese right to vote has been impacted at all. petitioners have not claimed any violation of their statutory rights.

Once the immigrants became citizens of India they became governed by the constitution of India: Justice Kant

Justice Kant: on article 29 we have held petitioners have failed to show that there is a grave impact on assamese culture, language. in fact it mandates detection and deportation of illegal immigrants who entered the territory of india after 1971 cut off date. petitioners have not been able to show constitutionally valid impact on their culture etc due to the presence of any other group. we cannot accept that assamese right to vote has been impacted at all. petitioners have not claimed any violation of their statutory rights

Reasoning of this legislation is not capricious or unreasonable, says Justice Kant

Bench notes that the principle of Fraternity cannot be applied in all unequal manner and has to applied uniformly: Justice Suryakant

Justice Suryakant : our conclusion is that petitioners want to control and choose the meaning of Fraternity and who become there neighbours....

Bench notes that the principle of Fraternity cannot be applied in all unequal manner and has to applied uniformly

It can be deduced that Section 6A doesnt not contradict Section 9 of the Citzenship Act, says Justice Suryakant

The expression 'ordinary resident' is examined on two prongs - how the authority will view it and how will the effected view it: Justice Suryakant

The petitioners have not been able to show a constitutional impact on their communities....the challenge on grounds of Article 21 and 29 are thus closed: Justice Suryakant

The provisions of IEAA shall also be read into Section 6A for the purpose of detection of foreigners: Justice Suryakant

Justice Suryakant observes that there is no conflict between the legislations ( Section 6A and IEAA), the statutes can be read harmoniously, not of them supplant each other

There is inadequate enforcement of the same (Section 6A) leading to widespread injustice: Justice Suryakant

Legislation may be valid at time of enactment but may become temporarily flawed with time: Justice Pardiwala on Section 6A: Justice Pardiwala

The ones who came to India post the cut off date of 1971 are declared to be illegal immigrants and thus section 6A is held to be redundant for them: Justice Kant

Section 6A falls within the bounds of constitution and thus who came to India within cut off are held to be citizens.

Section 6A was enacted to give legislative recognition to the political settlement: Justice Pardiwala

Legislature could have simply conferred deemed citizenship to anyone who entered before 1971. But the very fact that a statutory category was created from 1966 to 1972 subject to a stricter condition (no voting rights for 10 years) would mean that conferment of citizenship was not the only objective and it was infact to pacify the Assam people that such inclusion would not impact the then upcoming elections in the state

Cannot lose sight of the fact that 6A was brought in to give a legal avtar to some facets of Assam: Justice Pardiwala

We cannot lose sight of the fact that 6A was brought in to give a legal avtar to some facets of Assam accord and I am if the view that objectives of people signing the accord has to be kept in mind while determining the validity of Section 6A.

I have held how it militates against the very purpose of such a law: Justice Pardiwala

It is illogically unique that a Person wanting to avail benefits of citizenship under 6A has to wait for being detected and then move to the tribunal to prove the same. I have held how it militates against the very purpose of such a law.

Open endedness of Section 6A(3) shows the legislative intent and since there is no temporal limit .. no person would want to get detected as a foreigner under the same: Justice Pardiwala

There is no reason to see that the difference between Immigrants of pre 1966 and post 1966 to 1971 still remains relevant to the object of section 6A and letting it remain for future to come would be overlooking the reason for why it was brought in.

Section 6A has acquired unconstitutionaly with the outflux of time: Justice Pardiwala

No temporal limit for its applicability also weighs in and all the burden on the state to detect and deport also adds it. Justice Kant has agreed that influx of illegal immigrants did not stop as on 1985 however the ultimate view taken is such immigration cannot be attributed to section 6A. However owing to its inherent problem of no temporal limit and burden on state, it has solely contributed to the influx of illegal immigrants into Assam. Section 6A does not align with articles 6 and 7 of the constitution as the crucial difference is that onus of registration under article 6 lies on the person and not the state.. but under 6A it falls on the state.

Section 6A is constitutionally invalid with prospective effect: Justice Pardiwala

Immigrants before 1966 who were granted deemed citizenship subject to fulfillment of conditions shall remain unaffected. for those under 1966 to 1971 who followed condition of no voting for 10 years shall not be affected. those who did not follow the process of registration shall no longer be citizens of india. those who have cases pending before tribunals shall be governed by 6A(3). if someone is held to be illegal immigrant after this judgment for them section 6A shall be redundant.

Supreme Court by majority verdict upholds constitutional validity of Section 6A of Citizenship Act which grants citizenship to immigrants in Assam.