SC Upholds Section 6A of Citizenship Act by 4-1 Majority

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on October 17 upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, with a 4-1 majority, affirming the Assam Accord. The bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, deemed the provision constitutional, recognizing its role in addressing illegal immigration from Bangladesh into Assam. Justice JB Pardiwala dissented, calling Section 6A unconstitutional.

Assam Accord and Section 6A

Section 6A, introduced in 1985 following the Assam Accord, grants citizenship to those who entered Assam before January 1, 1966, and allows others who arrived by March 24, 1971, to register after a 10-year waiting period. Those who entered after this cut-off are subject to detection and deportation.

Majority Verdict vs Dissent

Chief Justice Chandrachud, along with Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, and Manoj Misra, upheld the legislative competence of Parliament, recognizing the Accord as a political solution to the issue of illegal immigration. Justice Pardiwala, in dissent, argued that Section 6A violated Article 29(1), citing concerns over the ethnic composition of the region.

Impact and Challenges

The ruling emphasizes stricter enforcement of immigration laws, with judicial oversight, addressing long-standing demographic concerns. The petitioners had contended that Assam’s separate cut-off date for citizenship was discriminatory and arbitrary, a concern that the ruling did not fully alleviate.

Key Highlights: Supreme Court Ruling on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act

Key Highlights Details
Date of Ruling – October 17, 2024.
Outcome – Section 6A upheld as constitutional by a 4-1 majority.
Case Concern – Constitutional validity of Section 6A, relating to illegal immigration in Assam.
Section 6A and Assam Accord – Introduced in 1985 after the Assam Accord. Grants citizenship to those who entered Assam before January 1, 1966.
– Others entering by March 24, 1971, can register after a 10-year waiting period.
– Those entering after the cut-off face detection and deportation.
Majority Opinion – Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, and Manoj Misra upheld Parliament’s legislative competence.
– Recognized the Assam Accord as a political solution for illegal immigration.
Dissenting Opinion – Justice JB Pardiwala dissented, calling Section 6A unconstitutional.
– Argued it violated Article 29(1) concerning protection of cultural and ethnic identities.
Impact of Ruling – Emphasizes stricter enforcement of immigration laws in Assam.
– Judicial oversight on illegal immigration issues.
– Concerns about demographic changes in Assam remain unresolved.

Piyush Shukla

Recent Posts

Which District has the Longest Name in Uttarakhand?

Uttarakhand is a beautiful state in northern India, known for its scenic mountains, rivers and…

1 day ago

GA Questions on Nationalisation of 14 Banks in 1969

The nationalisation of 14 banks in 1969 was a very important event in India's banking…

1 day ago

List of Countries Starting with the Letter ‘I,’ Know About Them

There are many countries in the world and each one has a name that makes…

1 day ago

International Moon Day 2025 – History, Significance, Objectives & UN Role

International Moon Day, celebrated every year on July 20, commemorates the historic first human landing…

1 day ago

Which Indian City is Known as City of Kidney Beans?

India is a country with many cities and each one is known for something special.…

1 day ago

World Chess Day 2025 – History, Significance & Key Insights

World Chess Day is celebrated globally on July 20 every year to commemorate the founding…

1 day ago