Supreme Court Upholds Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955
 |
| Section 6A |
Section 6A
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud and consisting of Justices Surya Kant, J.B. Pardiwala, M.M. Sundresh, and Manoj Misra, upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, in a 4:1 majority. Justice J.B. Pardiwala wrote a dissenting verdict, declaring Section 6A to be invalid with prospective effect.
What is Section 6A ?
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985, inserted the Section 6A in the Citizenship At, 1955, which laid down procedure for granting citizenship to immigrants who had entered Assam from Bangladesh before March 25, 1971. The amendment followed the signing of the tripartite Asam Accord on August 15, 1985 which was signed by the Rajiv Gandhi-led Union govern ment, the Assam Government and the All-Assam Student of Union (AASU) and All Assam Gana Sangram Parished after a si-year-long agitation against the entry of migrants from Bangladesh into Assam.
Base cut-off date for the detection and deletion of bugs is also
contains provisions for the regularization of those who arrived in the state after that date but before March 25, 1971.
Clause 5-8 says that foreigners who came to Assam on or after March 25, 197L, shall continue to be detected, deleted and expelled in accordance with law.
According to the Section 6 A
- Persons of Indian Origin' who entered Assam before January 1, 1966, and have been 'ordinarily resident' in the state shall be deemed to be citizens of India.Any person who entered and resided in Assam after January 1, 1966 but before March 25, 1971 who has been 'detected to be a foreigner would have the opportunity to register themselves according to rules made by the Central Government. Such person, after registration, would be granted Indian citizenship without the right to register in electoral rolls for the purpose of voting in elections for a period of 10 years.
- Any person entering on or after March 25, 1971, would be considered as an illegal immigrant.
Why Section 6A was Challenged ?
- The claims made by petitioners challenging Section 6├А were: Violation of Constitution : The petitioners argued that Section 6A is applicable only in Assam. It violates the principle of equality (Article 14). It provides different standard of citizenship for Assam than the rest of India. It also violates Article 29 and Article 355.
- Power of Parliament : The petitioners argued that Section 6A, which deals with migrants from East Pakistan (later Bangladesh) amends Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution-a change that can only be made through a constitutional amendment.
- Violation of Rights of Indigenous People: According to the petition filed by the Assam San Milita Mahasangha, Section 6A has reduced the
Justice DY Chandrachud asserted that Section 6A does not contravene Article 6, as Articles 6 and 7 address citizenship for individuals as of the date the Constitution came into effect, January 26, 1950. Justice Surya Kant also concluded that Section 6A does not infringe upon Article 6 and imposes no restrictions on granting citizenship after the cut-off date of July 19, 1948.
Power of Parliament to prescribe conditions for citizenship: Justice Surya Kant emphasized Parliament's authority under Article 11 to establish conditions for citizenship, and the Court should refrain from interfering with the legislature's decision regarding such a cut-off date.
Cut-off date is rational: According to CJ, Section 6A differentiates between 'migrants of partition' and 'migrants of war who entered after Operation Searchlight,' initiated by Pakistan on the night of March 25, 1971, as illegal immigrants.
Section 6A does not violate Article 355: According to CJ, Article 355 is part of Part XVIII of the Constitution, which deals with emergency provisions. Invoking these provisions by courts or citizens could jeopardize the federal structure of the country. Although the petitioners argued that the mass influx of immigrants from Bangladesh imposed a burden on the Union to protect the state (Assam) from external aggression and internal disturbances, CJ cautioned against such an interpretation and held that migration under Section 6A does not violate Article 355 of the Constitution.
Section 6A does not violate Article 14: Justice Suryakant held that Section 6A did not violate Article 14 by singling out Assam, as other border states like West Bengal, Meghalaya, and Tripura did not face similar issues.
Claims under Article 29 rejected: CJ Chandrachud stated that the mere presence of different ethnic groups in Assam was insufficient to claim a violation of Article 29(1), which protects the rights of ethnic and cultural minorities.
Claims under Article 21 rejected: Justice Suryakant held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any 'constitutionally actionable impact' on their communities, which would violate Article 21. He also held that Section 6A only extended the right to vote to new citizens.
Supreme Court ends Caste-based Allotment of Work in Prisons
On October 3, 2024, the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, established pivotal guidelines to prevent the segregation and division of labor solely based on the caste of prisoners. They invalidated provisions in the Prison Manuals of several states, which assigned jobs to prisoners based on their caste.
The Bench opined that the assignment of menial tasks to marginalized castes and cooking duties to higher castes contravenes Article 15 of the Constitution. The Bench directed all states to amend their manuals in accordance with the judgment and submit compliance reports. The court has mandated all states to remove caste details of prisoners to eradicate discrimination within prisons.
This order was issued in response to a petition filed by journalist Sukanya Shantha, following her investigative reporting series that illuminated how prison manuals in several states perpetuate caste-based discrimination and segregation in jails.
