ASSAM ACCORD: The Supreme Court’s Verdict on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act

The Supreme Court‘s Verdict on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act: ASSAM ACCORD

ANJAN SARMA

On October 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a historic judgment upholding the constitutionality of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

This crucial verdict directly addresses one of the most politically sensitive issues in Assam—the influx of immigrants between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, and their legal status as citizens.

By a 4:1 majority, the Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, reaffirmed the legal foundation of the Assam Accord of 1985, a landmark agreement that sought to protect the indigenous rights of the Assamese people while also addressing the complexities of immigration. This judgment, which resonates deeply in Assam’s ongoing struggle to preserve its cultural identity, provides legal clarity to a longstanding issue that has shaped the state’s politics, social dynamics, and identity.

Section 6A: A Legal and Historical Perspective

RelatedPosts

India & EV Revolution: Environmental impact Challenges !

January 19, 2025

Comparative Legal Analysis of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Human Rights Protection

January 19, 2025

স্মাৰ্টফোন, সামাজিক মাধ্যম আৰু শৈশৱৰ ‘ছন্দপতন ৰিষ্ট’?

January 19, 2025

Section 6A of the Citizenship Act was introduced as part of the Assam Accord, an agreement signed on August 15, 1985, between the Indian government and leaders of the Assam Movement, which was spearheaded by the All Assam Students Union (AASU). The accord aimed to address the tensions surrounding illegal immigration from Bangladesh, which had led to years of civil unrest in the state.

It established that those who had entered Assam before January 1, 1966, would be granted citizenship, while those who arrived between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, would also be eligible for citizenship but with restricted voting rights for ten years. Migrants who entered after March 25, 1971, were to be considered illegal immigrants.

“The conflict between Section 6A and the CAA highlights the broader ideological struggle between cultural nationalism and civic nationalism. Cultural nationalists in Assam argue that the preservation of the state’s unique cultural and linguistic heritage must take precedence over the accommodation of migrants. Civic nationalists, however, contend that India’s tradition of providing refuge to persecuted groups should guide its policies on citizenship.”

This provision was designed to balance the humanitarian needs of those fleeing conflict in Bangladesh with the legitimate concerns of Assam’s indigenous population, who feared that large-scale migration would erode their cultural and political autonomy. However, Section 6A has faced numerous legal challenges over the years, with petitioners arguing that it diluted the rights of the indigenous Assamese by conferring citizenship on foreigners.

The Supreme Court’s Verdict: Reaffirming the Assam Accord

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion, led by Justice Surya Kant and supported by Chief Justice Chandrachud, upheld the constitutionality of Section 6A, stating that it embodies the constitutional spirit of fraternity.

The court recognized Assam’s unique geopolitical situation, noting its proximity to Bangladesh and its history of migration, which necessitated a special legal provision. The court rejected claims that Section 6A violated Article 29(1) of the Indian Constitution, which safeguards the cultural and linguistic rights of minorities.

Chief Justice Chandrachud, in his concurring opinion, acknowledged that the presence of migrants did not inherently infringe on the cultural rights of Assam’s indigenous population. He argued that the cut-off date of March 25, 1971—established in the Assam Accord—was not arbitrary but was reasonable in light of historical events, particularly the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War.

The Chief Justice further emphasized the humanitarian imperative of accommodating those who had fled violence while also affirming the rights of the Assamese people to protect their cultural identity.

The Dissenting Opinion: Justice Pardiwala’s Concerns

Justice J.B. Pardiwala, the lone dissenting voice in the ruling, argued that while Section 6A may have been constitutional when enacted, it had become unconstitutional over time due to the demographic shifts it had caused in Assam. Justice Pardiwala expressed concern that the provision had failed to address the legitimate fears of the Assamese people regarding the influx of immigrants and its impact on their cultural, political, and economic rights.

He advocated for the provision to be declared unconstitutional with prospective effect, suggesting that new measures were needed to address the evolving demographic landscape in Assam.

Implications for the National Register of Citizens (NRC)

The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected to have profound implications for the ongoing National Register of Citizens (NRC) process in Assam, which aims to identify illegal immigrants. The NRC has been mired in controversy, with accusations of procedural errors and concerns about inaccuracies.

The court’s affirmation of Section 6A provides a legal framework for the NRC, particularly regarding the eligibility of those who entered Assam before March 25, 1971. However, the ruling may complicate efforts to reconcile the NRC with the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019, which has further muddied the waters on the issue of citizenship.

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and Assam’s Identity

The CAA, which fast-tracks citizenship for non-Muslim refugees from neighboring countries who arrived before December 31, 2014, has sparked widespread protests in Assam. Many in the state view the CAA as a violation of the Assam Accord, fearing that it could lead to an influx of more immigrants, further diluting Assam’s cultural and political identity.

Assam’s Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has been vocal in his opposition to any measures that undermine the NRC process. He has even declared that he would resign if any non-NRC applicant gained citizenship through the CAA, underscoring the high stakes involved in this debate.

The conflict between Section 6A and the CAA highlights the broader ideological struggle between cultural nationalism and civic nationalism. Cultural nationalists in Assam argue that the preservation of the state’s unique cultural and linguistic heritage must take precedence over the accommodation of migrants. Civic nationalists, however, contend that India’s tradition of providing refuge to persecuted groups should guide its policies on citizenship.

The Role of Foreigners Tribunals

The Supreme Court’s ruling also reaffirms the role of the Foreigners Tribunals in Assam, which have been tasked with determining the legal status of individuals suspected of being illegal immigrants. These tribunals have faced significant challenges, including accusations of bias and inefficiency. The court’s ruling provides clarity on the legal criteria for citizenship, reinforcing the importance of these tribunals in the ongoing NRC process.

A Verdict with Far-Reaching Implications

The Supreme Court’s verdict on Section 6A is a pivotal moment in Assam’s history, with far-reaching implications for the state’s future. While the ruling provides legal clarity, the political and cultural debates surrounding immigration and identity in Assam are far from settled. The NRC process will continue to face challenges, and the clash between the Assam Accord’s provisions and the CAA’s broader framework for citizenship will likely spark further legal battles.

For Assam, the challenge moving forward will be to navigate these complex issues while preserving its cultural identity. The court’s ruling, while addressing the legal questions, has left many of the political and cultural concerns unresolved. As the state grapples with these challenges, the Assam Accord will remain a guiding force, and the struggle to protect Assam’s unique heritage will continue.

The Supreme Court’s verdict on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is a landmark judgment that reaffirms the delicate balance between humanitarian needs and the protection of Assam’s cultural identity. By upholding the constitutionality of Section 6A, the court has provided a legal framework for addressing the issue of citizenship in Assam.

However, the broader political and cultural ramifications of this ruling will continue to shape the state’s future as it seeks to reconcile its rich heritage with the complexities of immigration and identity.

17-10-2024

Mahabahu.com is an Online Magazine with collection of premium Assamese and English articles and posts with cultural base and modern thinking.  You can send your articles to editor@mahabahu.com / editor@mahabahoo.com (For Assamese article, Unicode font is necessary) Images from different sources.