The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, a key provision that grants Indian citizenship to immigrants from Bangladesh who entered Assam before 25 March 1971.
The judgment, delivered by a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, marks a crucial moment in the state’s decades-long struggle with illegal immigration and its consequences on local demographics.
The four-judge bench, which also included Justices Surya Kant, M M Sundresh, and Manoj Misra, affirmed the legal validity of the Assam Accord, a political agreement brokered in 1985, which established the 1971 cut-off date for migrants to Assam. However, Justice J B Pardiwala delivered a dissenting opinion, arguing that Section 6A was unconstitutional.
Section 6A was added to the Citizenship Act of 1955 following the Assam Accord, signed between the Rajiv Gandhi-led Central government and the All Assam Students Union (AASU) after years of protests and civil unrest led by Prafulla Mahanta and other state leaders.
The provision grants citizenship to those who entered Assam between 1 January 1966 and 24 March 1971, allowing them to stay if they have been residing in the state continuously since that time.
Delivering the majority judgment, CJI Chandrachud emphasised that Section 6A serves a specific purpose within the broader framework of India’s immigration laws.
“Section 6A was introduced with the objective of managing the influx of migrants to India, particularly in Assam, and dealing with those who had already entered. It is a constitutional measure,” he said.
The CJI also clarified that Section 6A does not violate Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution, which provide guidelines for granting citizenship to those who migrated from Pakistan at the time of India’s partition.
“The Assam Accord was a political solution to a long-standing issue, and Section 6A is a legislative response that must be seen in the context of earlier laws addressing migration. It is not detached from India’s broader legal framework but is part of the country’s approach to balancing humanitarian needs with the interests of Indian states,” CJI Chandrachud explained.
Justice Chandrachud pointed to the distinct impact of migration on Assam, noting the state's smaller population and geographical size compared to other regions.
“Although Assam shares a relatively short border with Bangladesh—just 263 kilometres compared to 2,216 kilometres in West Bengal—the magnitude of migration to Assam has been significantly higher. This has had a pronounced effect on the cultural and political landscape of the state, particularly on the Assamese and Tribal populations,” the Chief Justice observed.
The judgment acknowledged the data submitted to the court, which estimates that Assam hosts approximately 40 lakh migrants. In contrast, West Bengal is home to around 57 lakh migrants, while neighbouring Tripura and Meghalaya have far smaller numbers. CJI Chandrachud attributed the greater demographic impact on Assam to the state's smaller land area and lower population density.
He further stressed that Section 6A’s March 1971 cut-off date was “rational” given the historical context, particularly the period following the partition of India and the subsequent rise in migration from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). CJI Chandrachud noted that the Pakistani military’s Operation Searchlight in 1971—an attempt to suppress the Bangladeshi nationalist movement—further increased migration to Assam.
"Section 6A is neither under-inclusive nor over-inclusive; it strikes a balance between the need to manage migration and the humanitarian requirements of migrants of Indian origin,” the CJI concluded.
Justice Surya Kant, writing for himself, Justices Sundresh, and Misra, concurred with the CJI’s reasoning. He reaffirmed the constitutionality of Section 6A, stating that it “falls within the bounds of the Constitution” and does not infringe upon the principle of fraternity, one of India’s constitutional cornerstones.
In a pointed observation, Justice Kant highlighted the persistent issue of illegal immigration in Assam and other border states. “Despite Section 6A’s citizenship provisions, there continues to be an influx of migrants through India’s porous borders. The implementation of immigration and citizenship laws cannot be left to the discretion of local authorities; this necessitates continuous monitoring by the courts,” he remarked.
The judgment also underlined the need for stronger border security measures and more efficient administrative machinery for identifying and processing migrants.
However, in a separate dissenting judgment, Justice Pardiwala held that Section 6A is arbitrary and constitutionally invalid. He argued that the provision’s open-ended nature, particularly in relation to the use of forged documents, had made it susceptible to abuse.
“The open-ended nature of Section 6A, combined with the advent of forged documents, has created loopholes for illegal immigrants who entered Assam after 24 March 1971 to claim citizenship,” Justice Pardiwala warned in his 127-page dissent.
The decision by the Supreme Court came in response to 17 petitions filed by various Assam-based organisations, including the NGO Assam Public Works and the Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6A.
Follow us
