The Supreme Court of India’s October 17, 2024, ruling on the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, has significant implications for Assam, its demographics, and the issue of illegal migration – and by extension, the Northeast. In a 4:1 decision by a 5-Judge Constitution Bench, the court upheld Section 6A, which stems from the Assam Accord, recognizing it as a legislative framework to address migration issues specific to Assam. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, and Manoj Misra, ruled that the Accord and Section 6A balance humanitarian concerns with local protection, given Assam’s unique migration challenges.
The ruling reinforces the cut-off date of March 25, 1971, for granting citizenship to migrants, particularly from Bangladesh. It also highlights the disproportionate impact of migration on Assam’s smaller land area, as compared to other states like West Bengal.
Justice JB Pardiwala’s dissent raised concerns over the temporal validity of Section 6A, arguing that its provisions have become outdated and lack adequate safeguards for detecting illegal immigrants. However, the bench dismissed petitions challenging the provision, affirming that Parliament had the authority to legislate on the matter.
This decision is expected to intensify efforts to implement the Assam Accord, including directives for identifying and deporting illegal migrants. The All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) welcomed the ruling but reiterated its demand to scrap the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) of 2019, which extends the citizenship cut-off date to 2014 for non-Muslim migrants. AASU argues that the CAA contradicts the Assam Accord and undermines its core principles by providing religion-based exceptions to citizenship, potentially reigniting tensions over migration and demographic changes in Assam.
The ruling upholds Assam’s rights to preserve its cultural and linguistic heritage while calling for stronger enforcement mechanisms to manage migration.
This development also prompts speculation about how the Supreme Court might rule if the ‘16-Point Agreement,’ which led to Article 371A and the creation of Nagaland, were legally interpreted. While the Assam Accord resulted in Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, the ‘16-Point Agreement’ led to Article 371A. The latter is an article in the Constitution of India, which seemingly carries more weight. However, a key issue with the ‘16-Point Agreement’ is the absence of signatories, unlike the Assam Accord, leading some to view it as a memorandum rather than a formal agreement.
The point here is that Article 371A stems from point 15 of the 16-Point Agreement, and it raises the question of whether the constitutionality of the other 15 points of the agreement should be examined. If deemed valid, Nagaland, for instance, might be placed under the Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India.