Why in news
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which allows certain Bangladeshi immigrants in Assam to secure Indian citizenship.
Supreme Court Judgment
The court emphasized that Section 6A is a valid law that respects the humanitarian needs of immigrants while balancing Assam’s socio-economic resources.
The judgment was delivered by a Constitution Bench in a 4:1 majority.
Justice Surya Kant noted that the principle of fraternity in the Constitution requires treating all communities fairly, rather than labeling some as "illegal immigrants."
The Chief Justice, D.Y. Chandrachud, supported the judgment, stating that the cut-off date of March 25, 1971 for citizenship is reasonable given historical contexts.
A dissenting opinion by Justice J.B. Pardiwala deemed Section 6A unconstitutional, arguing it could infringe on the rights of Assamese people.
The court recognized that while migration has economic impacts, it cannot solely blame Section 6A for ongoing immigration issues; systemic governmental failures also contributed to the situation.
Context of Section 6A
Section 6A originated from the Assam Accord of 1985, which aimed to address issues of illegal immigration from Bangladesh.
It allows immigrants who entered Assam before January 1, 1966, to be recognized as Indian citizens
While those who entered between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, can apply for citizenship under certain conditions.
The law excludes those who entered after March 25, 1971, when the Bangladesh Liberation War began.
COMMENTS