🚨 UPSC EXAM NOTES presents the July edition of our comprehensive monthly guide. Access it  to enhance your preparation. We value your input - share your thoughts and recommendations in the comments section or via email at Support@upscexamnotes.com 🚨

Critical Topics and Their Significance for the UPSC CSE Examination on October 19, 2024

Daily Insights and Initiatives for UPSC Exam Notes: Comprehensive explanations and high-quality material provided regularly for students

Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955

For Preliminary Examination:  Current events of antional and international Importance

For Mains Examination: GS II - Indian Polity & Governance

Context:

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which granted citizenship to immigrants who entered Assam before January 1, 1966, and called for stricter implementation of laws against illegal immigration and judicial monitoring of the implementation of immigration and citizenship legislations

Read about:

What is Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955?

What are the questions surrounding Section 6A?

What is the Assam Accord?

Key takeaways:

• The bench held that immigrants entering Assam on or after March 25, 1971, are not eligible for protection under Section 6A, and are therefore deemed illegal immigrants.
• Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud clarified that Section 6A does not violate Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution, which set a specific cut-off date of January 26, 1950, for granting citizenship to migrants from East and West Pakistan at the time of the Constitution's commencement.
• He stated that the legislative purpose of Section 6A aimed to balance the humanitarian concerns of Indian-origin migrants with the economic and cultural needs of Indian states.
• Although other states have longer borders with Bangladesh, Assam faces a more significant impact from migration in terms of numbers and resources.
• Therefore, the criteria for migration to Assam are reasonable. The March 25, 1971, cut-off date is justified, as it coincides with the eve of the Pakistani Army's Operation Searchlight, launched on March 26, 1971, to suppress the Bangladeshi nationalist movement. Migrants arriving before this event were regarded as part of the Indian partition, and the chosen criteria are logically aligned with Section 6A’s purpose.
• The bench explained that undocumented migrants could have been registered as citizens under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act before its amendment in 2003, which then excluded ‘illegal immigrants.’ Thus, the petitioner’s argument that Section 6A is unconstitutional because it allegedly encourages migration to Assam for citizenship purposes is incorrect.
• The ruling also stated that Section 6A aligns with constitutional principles, without violating the concepts of fraternity or Articles 6, 7, 9, 14, 21, 29, 326, and 355 of the Constitution of India. It does not conflict with the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950, or international law principles.
• Regarding Section 6A, introduced under the Assam Accord with a specific cut-off date, the Court affirmed its validity, noting that citizenship should not be narrowly interpreted to label one group as citizens and another as ‘illegal immigrants.’
• Agreeing with the majority opinion, CJI Chandrachud emphasized that while the Constitution protects the right to preserve culture, this right must be understood within the framework of India’s multicultural and pluralistic identity.
• The petitioners argued that Section 6A infringes on Article 29 by allowing residents from Bangladesh, who have a different cultural background, to live in Assam and gain citizenship, thereby impacting the preservation of Assamese culture. The Court, however, dismissed this argument