Section 6A of the Citizenship Act

Table of Contents

Background

Section 6A was inserted in 1985 into the Citizenship Act as a special provision to deal with the citizenship of people covered under the Assam Accord.
It provides the legal framework to either recognize migrants in Assam as Indian citizens or expel them, based on their migration date.
Migrants who arrived in Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971 from specified territories, including Bangladesh, are required to register under Section 18 for citizenship.
March 25, 1971 is set as the cutoff date for granting citizenship to Bangladeshi migrants in Assam under this provision.
Individuals who have lived in Assam during the specified period (between the two dates) are eligible to apply for Indian citizenship.

Petitioners’ Argument: Section 6A allegedly altered the constitutional provisions related to citizenship (Articles 6 and 7) without a constitutional amendment.
Court’s Response: The Supreme Court ruled that Articles 6 and 7 only pertained to determining citizenship at the time of the Constitution’s commencement in 1950.
- Section 6A, on the other hand, addresses later migrations from East Pakistan, and therefore does not conflict with these Articles.
- The court cited Article 11, which gives Parliament the authority to make laws regarding citizenship, affirming that Parliament has the right to create provisions for acquiring citizenship, such as those under Section 6A.

Petitioners’ Argument: They claimed that Section 6A violated the Right to Equality (Article 14) because it applies only to Assam and sets a different cut-off date for citizenship compared to other states.
Court’s Response: The Court upheld the different treatment for Assam, citing the state’s unique situation due to the Assam Movement and the significant influx of migrants.
- It found the March 24, 1971, cut-off date to be reasonable, especially given the political and cultural context of Assam.

Petitioners’ Argument: They argued that allowing migrants to gain citizenship amounted to “external aggression,” as defined in the court’s earlier ruling in Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union of India (2005).
Court’s Response: The court stated that Section 6A offers a controlled solution to migration, as opposed to the unregulated influx that would amount to external aggression.
- Also argued that interpreting Article 355 (which deals with the government’s responsibility to protect states from external aggression) in this way would lead to dangerous precedents, as it would give citizens the power to invoke emergency provisions inappropriately.

Petitioners’ Argument: They contended that granting citizenship to migrants from Bangladesh violated Article 29(1), which guarantees the protection of distinct cultural identities, claiming that the increase in the Bengali population eroded Assamese culture.
Court’s Response: The Court disagreed, stating that the presence of diverse ethnic groups does not inherently infringe on the cultural rights of the Assamese people.
- Accepting this argument would threaten the concept of fraternity and social cohesion in a diverse nation like India.