In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act in a 4:1 majority ruling. This section deals with Bangladeshi immigrants who entered Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, granting them a pathway to Indian citizenship. However, those who arrived after March 25, 1971, remain ineligible for citizenship under this provision.
Section 6A was introduced as part of the historic Assam Accord, signed on August 15, 1985, to resolve the long-standing issue of illegal immigration from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) after its separation from Pakistan on March 26, 1971. The agreement was a response to intense protests led by the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) and the Assam Gan Sangram Parishad (AAGSP), both of which demanded stricter immigration controls to protect Assam’s demographic composition.
The provision offers full citizenship to individuals who entered Assam before January 1, 1966. Those who arrived between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, are granted citizenship with a ten-year voting restriction. Immigrants who entered after March 25, 1971, were to be deported, marking a clear cutoff date.
Petitioners challenging Section 6A argued that the provision disproportionately affected Assam, permitting a large influx of unauthorized immigrants from Bangladesh and threatening the rights and identity of the indigenous Assamese population. They asserted that this law effectively legitimized unauthorized immigration, placing Assam’s demographic and political landscape at risk.
The Constitution Bench, led by CJI Chandrachud, had earlier clarified that their examination would focus solely on the validity of Section 6A, separating it from the contentious issue of the Assam National Register of Citizens (NRC). The ruling has profound implications for the region, as petitioners have long demanded a revision of the provision, contending that it unfairly impacts Assam compared to other states.
During hearings, the court examined the impact of illegal immigration on Assam and the government’s steps to address it. An affidavit submitted by the government acknowledged the challenges of detecting, detaining, and deporting illegal immigrants, emphasizing the need for stronger border control. The government also cited obstacles posed by West Bengal’s policies, which have hindered the fencing of the Indo-Bangladesh border—an essential measure for national security.
With the Supreme Court’s 4:1 decision, Section 6A remains intact, reinforcing the provisions of the Assam Accord. However, the court’s ruling is likely to stir political debates in Assam, as concerns about immigration and its impact on Assam’s identity remain deeply rooted.