New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, thereby granting citizenship to immigrants who entered Assam before January 1, 1966.

A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud delivered the verdict. While reading out the verdict, Justice Chandrachud said that while four judges formed part of the majority ruling, Justice J B Pardiwala expressed a dissent.

What is Section 6A?

Section 6A was introduced as a special provision in the 1955 Act to implement the “Assam Accord,” a Memorandum of Settlement signed on August 15, 1985, by the government of Rajiv Gandhi with representatives of the Assam Movement. This agreement arose in the context of the socio-political changes following the Indo-Pakistan War of 1971.

Under Section 6A, individuals who entered Assam before January 1, 1966, and who were considered “ordinarily resident” in the state, were granted the full rights and obligations of Indian citizens. In contrast, those who arrived in Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, were afforded similar rights and obligations but were prohibited from voting for a period of ten years.

The Assam Accord case: How has it transpired so far? 

The petitioners challenged the court regarding the selective implementation of Section 6A in Assam compared to other border states. They argued that the provision had contributed to a “rise in infiltration.” In response, the respondents highlighted that prioritising the protection of a region's cultural attributes could justify the denial of citizenship. They warned that this approach risks shifting from 'civic nationalism' to 'cultural nationalism,' which contradicts the principles of the constitution.

The verdict will have a significant bearing on Assam’s NRC exercise. 

Why is Citizenship Amendment Act considered a blow to Indian constitutional values ? 

Amnesty International has condemned the operationalization of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 2019, stating it undermines Indian constitutional values of equality and religious non-discrimination, and is inconsistent with India’s international human rights obligations. Aakar Patel, chair of Amnesty International India, described the CAA as a “bigoted law” that institutionalised discrimination based on religion, reflecting poorly on Indian authorities for ignoring widespread criticism from various sectors, including civil society and the United Nations.

The CAA, enacted in 2019 and operationalized with new rules on March 11, 2024, facilitates Indian citizenship for Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who entered India before December 31, 2014. However, it excludes other vulnerable groups, such as Rohingya Muslims and Sri Lankan Tamils, who also face persecution.

The act, alongside the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC) and Foreigners Tribunals, poses significant risks to India’s Muslim minority. Political leaders’ statements suggest that the CAA can be weaponized against Muslims, as only those included in the CAA will retain citizenship, potentially rendering others stateless if they are excluded from the NRC.

(With inputs from Agencies)