Vikrant Shekhawat : Oct 18, 2024, 11:53 AM
Supreme Court: In an important decision, the Supreme Court has upheld Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which grants citizenship to migrants from Bangladesh in Assam, as valid and constitutional. This decision was passed by a five-judge Constitution Bench with a majority of 4:1. This decision puts an end to the long-standing debate over the citizenship of migrants associated with the Assam Accord.Section 6A: Part of the Assam AccordSection 6A was included in the Citizenship Act in 1985 after the Assam Accord. The agreement was signed between the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and the All Assam Students Union (AASU). This provision deals with the citizenship of migrants who came to Assam from January 1, 1966 to March 25, 1971. According to the Assam Accord, it was necessary for these migrants to register to get Indian citizenship, while there was a provision to send migrants who came after March 25, 1971 out of the country.Challenge to the constitutionality of Section 6AVarious organizations and civil groups of Assam had challenged Section 6A in the Supreme Court, considering it a threat to the cultural and demographic structure of Assam. The petitioners argued that this provision differentiates Assam from other states of India and promotes large-scale migration, which has caused imbalance in the population of Assam. The petitioners had demanded to consider 1951 as the cut-off date for migrants, so that illegal migrants can be identified and expelled.Supreme Court's decisionThe Supreme Court, in a majority verdict on October 19, held Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 constitutional. Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and three other judges said that this provision is appropriate in view of the influx of migrants in Assam. The court held that the geopolitical situation of Assam and the identification of foreign migrants is a complex process, so Parliament has the right to implement it.CJI Chandrachud said that Section 6A was specifically made keeping in mind the pressure of increasing migrants in Assam and its constitutional framework is appropriate. The other three judges—Justice Suryakant, MM Sundresh and Manoj Mishra—also agreed with this decision.Justice JB Pardiwala's dissentHowever, Justice JB Pardiwala disagreed with this decision and termed Section 6A unconstitutional. He argued that Section 6A has increased the possibilities of obtaining citizenship on the basis of fake documents. He said that this provision can seriously affect the demography and social structure of Assam.Mixed reactionsThis decision of the Supreme Court has received mixed reactions in Assam. The All Assam Students Union (AASU), which led the movement against illegal immigrants between 1979-1985, welcomed this decision. They say that the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the Assam Accord, under which illegal migrants in Assam should be identified and expelled.However, former AASU leader Matiur Rahman, who had challenged Section 6A, called the decision unfortunate. He said it would make Assam a "dumping ground" for foreigners and threaten the state's cultural identity.Central government's standSolicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the central government, had expressed concern over the growing immigration problem in Assam. He said the influx of migrants through Section 6A would be limited to a limited time period, but declaring it unconstitutional would not solve Assam's problems. At the same time, he admitted that the increasing pressure of migrants in Assam has put a strain on resources and is affecting the social structure of the state.India-Bangladesh border and migrationOf the 4,096-km India-Bangladesh border, 267 km is linked to Assam. A large number of people migrated to Assam during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, leading to an increase in the number of illegal immigrants in the state. Local residents and organizations in Assam have been protesting against this illegal migration for a long time, which has increased cultural and political conflict in the state.ConclusionThis decision of the Supreme Court has clarified the legal position on Assam's migrant problem. With the validity of Section 6A being upheld, the question of citizenship under the provisions of the Assam Accord has now become more clear. However, there is still discontent and apprehension in the state about the long-term consequences of this decision, which will need to be addressed.