SECTION 6A OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT, 1955

Context & Historical Background

• Assam Accord (1985):
  • Signed between the Rajiv Gandhi government and leaders of the Assam Movement (1979–1985), which demanded the detection and deportation of illegal migrants, primarily from Bangladesh.
  • The Accord aimed to resolve Assam’s demographic crisis and ethnic tensions.
• Legal Enactment: Section 6A was inserted into the Citizenship Act, 1955, through the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985, to implement the Assam Accord.
• Objective: Address the citizenship status of migrants from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) who entered Assam between 1966 and 1971, balancing humanitarian concerns with Assam’s socio-political stability.

Key Provisions of Section 6A

1. Eligibility for Citizenship:
   • Pre-1966 Migrants: Automatically deemed Indian citizens.
   • 1966–1971 Migrants:
     • Required to register themselves with the Foreigners Tribunal.
     • Granted citizenship after residing in India for 10 years from their date of entry.
   • Post-March 25, 1971: Classified as illegal migrants, subject to deportation.
2. Special Provisions for Assam:
   • Creation of a separate National Register of Citizens (NRC) for Assam (updated in 2019).
   • Burden of proof on migrants to establish residency in Assam before March 25, 1971.

Supreme Court’s Judgment (2023)

A 5-judge Constitution Bench upheld the validity of Section 6A but referred questions on its constitutionality to a larger bench.

Key Legal Reasoning:

1. Legislative Competence (Article 246):
   • Parliament has exclusive authority under Entry 17 (Citizenship) of the Union List to legislate on citizenship.
   • Section 6A is a valid exercise of this power.
2. Article 14 (Equality):
   • The classification of Assam migrants as a distinct group is reasonable due to:
     • Unique historical context (Partition, Bangladesh Liberation War).
     • Assam Accord as a political resolution to end violent agitations.
   • Cut-off Date (March 24, 1971): Aligns with the Bangladesh Liberation War’s commencement; not arbitrary.
3. Cultural Rights (Article 29):
   • No conclusive evidence that migrants diluted Assamese culture.
   • The state failed to prove that demographic changes directly harmed Assamese identity.

Significance of Section 6A

1. Conflict Resolution:
   • Ended the Assam Movement, restoring peace.
2. Humanitarian Approach:
   • Avoided mass statelessness for pre-1971 migrants.
3. Federalism:
   • Recognized Assam’s unique concerns while upholding Parliament’s authority.

Criticisms & Challenges

1. Demographic Threat:
   • Critics argue Section 6A legitimized illegal migration, altering Assam’s ethnic composition.
   • Data: Assam’s Muslim population rose from 24% in 1951 to 34% in 2011.
2. Discrimination:
   • Other states (e.g., West Bengal, Tripura) face similar migration challenges but lack comparable provisions.
3. Implementation Gaps:
   • Delays in updating the NRC and deporting post-1971 migrants.
   • 2019 NRC: Excluded 19 lakh people, leaving them in legal limbo.

UPSC Insights

A. Linkages to Current Affairs:

1. NRC-CAA Conflict:
   • CAA, 2019: Fast-tracks citizenship for non-Muslim migrants from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh (cut-off: 2014) but excludes Assam due to Section 6A’s 1971 cutoff.
   • Controversy: Raises questions about religion-based citizenship vs. Section 6A’s secular approach.
2. Assam’s Demand for 1951 Cutoff:
   • Ethnic groups (e.g., AASU) demand 1951 as the cutoff for NRC to protect indigenous rights.

B. Constitutional & Governance Issues:

• Judicial Review: SC’s referral to a larger bench highlights unresolved questions on:
  • Whether Section 6A violates the basic structure doctrine (e.g., secularism, federalism).
  • Parliament’s power to create differential citizenship rules for states.
• Federalism vs. National Security: Tension between Assam’s autonomy and central control over citizenship.

C. Case Studies for Essays:

• Assam Accord as a Model: Compare with Punjab Accord (1985) or Mizoram Peace Accord (1986) to analyze conflict resolution.
• Global Citizenship Laws: Contrast with Myanmar’s Rohingya crisis or Germany’s post-war citizenship policies.

D. Ethics (GS IV):

• Humanitarian vs. Rights-Based Approach: Balancing migrant protection with indigenous rights.
• Administrative Morality: Ensuring NRC implementation without harassing genuine citizens.

Recent Developments (2023–24)

• Pending Constitution Bench: SC to examine if Section 6A violates the basic structure.
• Assam Protests: Renewed demands for a 1951 NRC cutoff and deportation of post-1971 migrants.

Conclusion

Section 6A reflects India’s complex balancing act between humanitarian obligations and regional identity protection. While it resolved immediate conflicts, long-term solutions require addressing implementation gaps, ensuring federal equity, and upholding constitutional values.