On Thursday, the Supreme Courtroom dominated that Part 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955—which grants citizenship to immigrants who entered Assam earlier than January 1, 1966—is constitutional. In its judgment, the court docket said, “We now have affirmed the Parliament’s authority to legislate on this matter. Part 6A doesn’t battle with Part 9 of the Citizenship Act.”
This resolution got here from a five-judge constitutional bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud. The bench, in a 4:1 majority resolution, reaffirmed the availability’s validity, with Justice JB Pardiwala dissenting. Different members of the bench included Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, and Manoj Misra.
Background of Part 6A
Part 6A was launched in 1985 as a part of the Assam Accord, an settlement between the Indian authorities and leaders of the Assam motion. This provision was added as a political resolution to deal with the inflow of Bangladeshi refugees in the course of the Bangladesh Liberation Conflict.
It permits migrants who entered Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, to use for Indian citizenship, whereas those that arrived after March 25, 1971, aren’t eligible for citizenship beneath this part.
Supreme Courtroom’s Ruling
The court docket’s ruling affirmed that refugees who arrived in Assam earlier than March 25, 1971, can retain their Indian citizenship, so long as they meet the mandatory circumstances. The bench acknowledged March 25, 1971 as an affordable closing date, and argued that Part 6A was neither overly inclusive nor under-inclusive in figuring out citizenship rights.
Justice Surya Kant emphasised that immigrants who arrived after the closing date can’t be granted citizenship. The court docket additionally acknowledged that the central authorities’s resolution to limit the implementation of Part 6A to Assam was justified because of the distinctive demographic and cultural challenges posed by the large-scale refugee inflow.
Influence of Refugee Inflow in Assam
The arrival of Bangladeshi migrants in Assam in the course of the late 1960s and early 1970s had a profound impression on the state’s demography and tradition. The Assam Accord, signed on August 15, 1985, sought to deal with these considerations by offering a humanitarian resolution by means of Part 6A. Nonetheless, the petitioners who challenged the part argued that it undermined the political and cultural rights of Assam’s unique residents.
In response, the Chief Justice famous that Assam’s geographical and demographic limitations made it extra weak to the results of immigration in comparison with different states. The inflow of roughly 40 lakh migrants in Assam had a extra vital impression than the 57 lakh migrants who entered West Bengal because of Assam’s smaller land space.
Position of the Central Authorities
The Supreme Courtroom upheld the central authorities’s place that uncontrolled immigration poses a menace to Assam’s cultural integrity. The court docket reiterated the federal government’s duty to forestall unlawful immigration, stating that Part 6A represented a obligatory measure to deal with the state’s distinctive state of affairs.
