Culture and society : On upholding Section 6A of the Citizenship Act
Supreme Court of India verdict on citizenship law for Assam helps avoid fresh problems
In upholding Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, a provision introduced in 1985 to give effect to the core feature of the Assam Accord, the Supreme Court of India has helped preserve the existing legal regime for determining citizenship and identification of foreigners in Assam. Striking it down would have had the undesirable consequence of turning the clock back on the process laid down in statutory provisions and rules for the purpose. In its 4:1 decision, the Court has rightly seen the provision in the light of historical developments. While on one hand, Section 6A conferred deemed citizenship on all those who entered Assam from areas in erstwhile East Pakistan before January 1, 1966, it created, on the other, a system of registration for those who immigrated from that day to March 25, 1971, the day Pakistan began Operation Searchlight, a military drive to suppress the Bengali nationalist movement. The latter category of people had to be ordinarily residing in Assam and declared to be a foreigner by a tribunal before they could apply for registration as citizens. However, they would be ineligible to be on the electoral rolls for 10 years from the date of detection. Section 6A, as the Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, says in his concurring opinion, was aimed at finding a middle ground between a humanitarian approach towards the immigrant population in Assam and ensuring that large-scale immigration does not result in the loss of the cultural, economic and political rights of the Assam people.
The majority has rejected the notion that the provision is unconstitutional on the ground that it treats Assam differentially from the rest of the country. It has noted that the citizenship provisions in the Constitution referred to ‘citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution’ and Parliament was not deprived of the power to introduce provisions on citizenship for a different category of people from a different date. In his main opinion, speaking for himself and two other judges, Justice Surya Kant has acknowledged the petitioners’ “ demographic anxiety”, but did not believe that the idea of fraternity in the Constitution was threatened by a mere change in demography. It is not a misplaced fear when he says accepting the argument that demographic change could lead to an erosion of the cultural rights of a section of society may open the floodgates for similar challenges to undermine inter-State migration in the guise of protecting indigenous culture. At a time when the exercise to finalise a National Register of Citizens for Assam is in limbo — 19 lakh people have been identified as non-citizens, but there have been no further developments — any decision invalidating Section 6A would have created fresh complications.