JALDI

Jaldi-Vidhi

In Re: Section 6A Of The Citizenship Act, 1955

Case details and hearing information from the Constitution Bench Pendency Portal.

601

Message
show

In Re: Section 6A Of The Citizenship Act, 1955

This case deals with the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the process to be followed for the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in the state of Assam.

Petitioners Arguments
The Petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Clause 6(A) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 on the grounds that a separate cut-off date for citizenship (March 24, 1971 as per the provision) could not be made applicable only to Assam, and the same be kept uniform in the rest of India. The writ petitions filed by numerous parties have also highlighted that the NRC violates the principle of equality under Article 14 by restricting the eligibility to certain religious communities.
Responders Arguments
The State claimed that the NRC is a necessary exercise for any sovereign country to identify its citizens from its non-citizens. It also claimed that the NRC had been a part of the Citizenship Act since December 2004. The State referred to Article 14 and its reasonable classification principle, and submitted that the selection of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Parsis, Jains, and Christians in the classification was based on religion and was different from the one practiced by neighbouring countries. It said that any classification is “likely in some degree to produce some inequality”. The State also held that it is its responsibility under law to identify and detect illegal migrants and follow the due process of law in tackling them. It maintained that there was no breach of the principle of constitutional morality as the same cannot be invoked in isolation and must be read with a fundamental right.
Last Listed On
2024-10-17
Start Date
2009-07-03
End Date
2024-10-17
Card Stage Date
2024-10-17
Review Petition No
W.P.(C) No. 274/2009
Case Status
Archive
Bench Status
Constituted
Subject Matter
Constitution
Comment
NA
Disposal Time
15 years, 3 months, 15 days

5 Judge Bench

Judgment delivered

Consider As Stage Of Pendency
false

Date of institution of case

Date of reference to 5 Judge Bench

Judgement pronounced

The North-East Indian state of Assam was first ceded to the British by the Burmese on 24 February 1826, which was then placed as an administrative unit of Bengal. Assam was later declared a Governor’s province under the Government of India Act, 1935. The Foreigners Act, enacted in 1946, placed the burden of proving whether or not a person is a foreigner on such persons. Thereafter, in 1950, when the Constitution came into force, Article 5 guaranteed that every person domiciled in India who was himself, or whose parents were, born in India or who had been an ordinary resident of India for at least five years preceding the commencement of the Constitution was a citizen of India while Article 6 of the Constitution set out the rights of citizenship available to certain persons who had migrated to India from Pakistan. Under the latter, 19-07-1948 was set as the baseline and persons who migrated to India prior to this date were automatically deemed to be Indian citizens. The same year as the Constitution came into force, the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 was also enacted to protect Assam’s indigenous inhabitants from large scale immigration of East Bengal residents. Sections 2 and 4 of this Act gave the Central Government the power to order the expulsion of certain immigrants and to give effect to such expulsion orders. During the 1951 Census, a National Register of Citizens (“NRC”) was prepared under the Ministry of Home Affairs’ directive. Between 1948 and 1971, there was large-scale migration from erstwhile East Pakistan to Assam. In 1971, East Pakistan emerged as the independent nation of Bangladesh. However, given the continuing influx of illegal migrants from Bangladesh into Assam even after 1971, the All Assam Students Union (“AASU”) submitted a memorandum to the Prime Minister inviting attention to the issue. In 1983, the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act, 1983 , applicable only to Assam, was enacted with the intention of speeding up determination of illegal migrants in Assam for their deportation. On 15-08-1985, the “Assam Accord” was signed between AASU, All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (“AAGSP”) and the Central and State Government. In pursuance of the Assam Accord, Section 6A was inserted in the Citizenship Act, 1955 . This provision granted the benefit of Indian citizenship on all persons who had migrated to Assam before 1966. Additionally, all persons who migrated to Assam between 01-01-1966 and 25-03-1971 were to become Indian citizens either immediately or after a period of ten years on determination that they did in fact settle in India during that period. In 2000, a Writ Petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 was filed before the Supreme Court. In the final judgment Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India , the Court struck down the impugned Act stating that instead of assisting in deporting illegal migrants, the Act placed the burden of proof on the state. Consequently, the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act 1950 along with the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners Tribunal Order, 1964 were to be used by the Government to detect illegal migrants liable to be deported. In 2006, the Foreigners (Tribunals for Assam) Order was promulgated. This order was also struck down by the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal (II) v. Union of India for similar reasons. In the Writ Petition Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha v. Union of India, (“Assam Accord case”) the petitioners, the tribal and non-tribal people of Assam, raised the plea that the massive influx of illegal migrants into Assam was putting India’s sovereignty and integrity at stake. The influx was leading to periodic clashes between Indian citizens and illegal migrants resulting in loss of life and property, thereby violating the fundamental rights of Assamese people under Articles 21 and 29 of the Constitution. According to the petitioners, Section 6A, being ongoing and not time bound, violated Article 14 of the Constitution. In the present case, a special two-judge bench monitored the process of updating the NRC and issued orders to the Executive (both the Union of India and State of Assam) to ensure the publication of the NRC and prevention of further influx of immigrants. This included determining deadlines, documents citizens could submit to be included in the NRC and other modalities concerning the NRC. The orders given in the final order of this case is to ensure that the NRC updation exercise is completed subject to the outcome and orders of the decision on constitutionality of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 which is pending before a five-judge bench. The order containing the orders for monitoring the process appears to be disposed of. However, the two-judge bench was of the opinion that this case involved questions of interpreting the Constitution and hence will be tagged along with the Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha case to be decided by the five-judge bench.

This case, pertaining to the exercise for preparation and updating of NRC for the state of Assam, was directed and monitored by the Supreme Court Bench consisting of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Fali Nariman. The questions that are answered through this judgement are the following: While implementing NRC, are the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Card Rules) 2003 being complied with? Is there a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to allow refiling of documents and address objections for residents excluded from the draft NRC list? Can the children whose parents’ applications for NRC are pending be separated from their parents and sent to detention camps?

However, for the reader to understand the gravity of the Assam Accord case and the nature of questions therein, the questions of law before the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India deciding the matter in the Assam Accord case are the following: Whether Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution of India permit the enactment of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act (Section 6A) by prescribing a cut-off date different from the cut-off date prescribed in Article 6? Does Section 6A violate Articles 325 and 326 of the Constitution of India in that it has diluted the political rights of the citizens of the State of Assam? What is the scope of the fundamental right contained in Article 29(1) ? Is the fundamental right absolute in its terms? In particular, what is the meaning of the expression “culture” and the expression “conserve”? Whether Section 6A violates Article 29(1)? Whether Section 6A violates Article 355 ? What is the true interpretation of Article 355 of the Constitution? Would an influx of illegal migrants into a State of India constitute “external aggression” and/or “internal disturbance”? Does the expression “State” occurring in this Article refer only to a territorial region or does it also include the people living in the State, which would include their culture and identity? Whether Section 6A violates Article 14 in that, it singles out Assam from other border States (which comprise a distinct class) and discriminates against it? Also whether there is no rational basis for having a separate cut-off date for regularising illegal migrants who enter Assam as opposed to the rest of the country? Whether Section 6A violates Article 21 in that the lives and personal liberty of the citizens of Assam have been affected adversely by the massive influx of illegal migrants from Bangladesh? Whether delay is a factor that can be taken into account in moulding relief under a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution? Whether, after a large number of migrants from East Pakistan have enjoyed rights as citizens of India for over 40 years, any relief can be given in the petitions filed in the present cases? Whether Section 6A violates the basic premise of the Constitution and the Citizenship Act in that it permits citizens who have allegedly not lost their Citizenship of East Pakistan to become deemed citizens of India, thereby conferring dual citizenship to such persons? Whether Section 6A violates the fundamental basis of Section 5(1) proviso and Section 5(2) of the Citizenship Act (as it stood in 1985) in that it permits a class of migrants to become deemed citizens of India without any reciprocity from Bangladesh and without taking the oath of allegiance to the Indian Constitution? Whether the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 being a special enactment qua immigrants into Assam, alone can apply to migrants from East Pakistan/Bangladesh to the exclusion of the general Foreigners Act and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 made thereunder? Whether Section 6A violates the Rule of Law in that it gives way to political expediency and not to government according to law? Whether Section 6A violates fundamental rights in that no mechanism is provided to determine which persons are ordinarily resident in Assam since the dates of their entry into Assam, thus granting deemed citizenship to such persons arbitrarily?

Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955

In the present case, A Division Bench comprising CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Rohinton Nariman closely monitored the process, to ensure that the Government was complying with the Citizenship Act 1955 and Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Card Rules) 2003 . The monitoring of the NRC process was then continued by a Bench headed by then Chief Justice of India, S. A. Bobde . While disposing of this matter, the judgment also acknowledged that this outcome is subject to the decision of the larger Constitution Bench who will decide upon the 13 complex questions involving the interpretation of the Constitution.

Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha v. Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs Represented by the Secretary

Date Of Institution Start
2012-11-29
Date Of Tagging
2013-05-08
Case No
W.P.(C) No. 562/2012
Date Of Tagging Link
https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/bosir/orderpdfold/1729420.pdf

The Constitutional Challenge to S. 6A of the Citizenship Act (Assam Accord): A Primer

The Constitutional Challenge to S. 6A of the Citizenship Act (Assam Accord): A Primer
Source Of Info
Constitutional Law and Philosophy
Date Of Fr
2017-05-07

National Register of Citizens and the Supreme Court

National Register of Citizens and the Supreme Court
Source Of Info
Economic and Political Weekly
Date Of Fr
2018-07-21

How the Supreme Court’s Hardline Stance on Citizenship Deepened the Flaws in Assam’s NRC

How the Supreme Court’s Hardline Stance on Citizenship Deepened the Flaws in Assam’s NRC
Date Of Fr
2019-07-31

Interview: 'August 31 NRC Can’t Be Final Without the Constitutional Bench's Verdict’

Interview: 'August 31 NRC Can’t Be Final Without the Constitutional Bench's Verdict’
Source Of Info
The Wire
Date Of Fr
2019-09-03

Citizenship and the Mass Production of Statelessness in Assam

Citizenship and the Mass Production of Statelessness in Assam
Source Of Info
India Exclusion Report
Date Of Fr
2021-02-10