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.
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.
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.
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 | 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. |
Recognizing the need for responsible and inclusive AI development, a new global initiative the AI…
Microsoft has joined hands with Singapore-based telecom infrastructure company Lightstorm to develop the new undersea…
In 2027, the International Booker Prize will officially to be renamed as the Bukhman International…
When we think about parenting in the animal kingdom, mothers usually receives the most of…
Japan's political leadership has seen various transitions from the Meiji era to the present day.…
India and Japan strengthened their Special Strategic and Global Partnership by unveiling a comprehensive roadmap…