What is Section 6A of the Citizenship Act?

A special framework for Assam. People entering before 1-1-1966 became citizens; those entering 1-1-1966 to 25-3-1971 could register after 10 years’ residence.

Was the petition time-barred after 27 years?

No. The Supreme Court held that delay alone does not defeat Article 32 claims, especially when fundamental rights issues arise.

What directions did the Court give?

Update the NRC, detect and deport post-25-3-1971 illegal migrants, streamline deportation with Bangladesh, and strengthen border management.

Were Articles 14, 21 and 355 involved?

Yes. The case questioned equality, life and dignity, and the Union’s duty to protect states against external aggression and internal disturbance.

Law Easy

01 November, 2025

1951

Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha v. Union of India — Section 6A & Citizenship in Assam | The Law Easy

Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha v. Union of India

Q: Did the Supreme Court strike down Section 6A?

No. The Court referred the matter to a larger Bench and kept Section 6A operational until final decision.

Section 6A, equality & national security — how the Supreme Court handled Assam’s migration question.

Supreme Court of India 2015 Referred to Larger Bench AIR 2015 SC 783 Section 6A • Article 14 • Article 355 7 min read

By Gulzar Hashmi · India · Published: 2015-01-01

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court did not strike down Section 6A of the Citizenship Act for Assam. Instead, it said the petition is maintainable despite delay and referred the matter to a larger Bench. Meanwhile, Section 6A stays. The Court also issued NRC and border directions.

Issues

Does Section 6A violate Articles 14, 21, 355?
Are different cut-off dates for Assam arbitrary or discriminatory?
Does migrant influx amount to “external aggression” or “internal disturbance” under Article 355?
Is a constitutional challenge after 27 years still maintainable?

Rules

Section 6A — Citizenship Act, 1955

Special regime for Assam: pre-1 Jan 1966 entrants = citizens; 1 Jan 1966–25 Mar 1971 entrants = register after 10 years’ residence.

Constitutional Principles

Art. 14 (equality), Art. 21 (life & dignity), Art. 355 (Union’s duty to protect States). Delay under Art. 32 doesn’t automatically bar relief.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline

Post-1947, cross-border migration into Assam grew; it surged during the 1971 Bangladesh war, causing social and political unrest.

1985 Assam Accord led to insertion of Section 6A to handle legacy migrants distinctly for Assam.

Petitioners challenged Section 6A for violating Arts. 14, 21, 355 and harming state integrity; matter reached the Supreme Court.

Respondents argued the petition was time-barred due to a 27-year delay since 1985.

Arguments

Petitioners (Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & others)

Section 6A is arbitrary; violates Art. 14 & 21.
Persistent influx = external aggression/internal disturbance under Art. 355.
Different cut-off dates for Assam are discriminatory.
Delay should not defeat fundamental rights claims.

Respondents (Union of India, State of Assam)

Section 6A implements the Assam Accord; it is a policy choice tailored to Assam’s history.
Petition suffers from inordinate delay; reliance interests settled.
NRC/border steps are ongoing; sweeping invalidation is unwarranted.

Judgment (Held)

Judgment highlight for Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha

The writ is maintainable despite delay; fundamental rights issues merit hearing.
Questions need a larger Bench (min. five judges) under Art. 145(3); 13 issues framed.
Section 6A continues until the larger Bench decides.
Directions issued: update the NRC, detect citizens under 6A, identify & deport post-25-3-1971 illegal entrants, streamline deportation with Bangladesh, and strengthen border fencing/patrolling.
Matter listed for monitoring compliance.

Ratio Decidendi

When core constitutional questions and fundamental rights are raised, delay alone does not bar relief under Article 32. Interim status quo may continue, but the Court can still issue operative directions to protect citizens and the constitutional order.

Why It Matters

Sets the stage for a constitutional review of Section 6A.
Clarifies that Article 32 isn’t defeated by passage of time alone.
Links citizenship policy to security and border governance.

Key Takeaways

Delay ≠ bar to Art. 32 relief

Larger Bench to decide 6A

NRC & border directions issued

6A continues till final ruling

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “D-LAN” — Delay no bar, Larger Bench, Acts continue (6A), NRC directions.

Spot rights & security claims (Arts. 14/21/355).
Send big constitutional questions to a larger Bench.
Safeguard with interim NRC/border steps.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Is Section 6A constitutional, and can a delayed challenge proceed under Article 32?

Rules: Articles 14, 21, 355; Article 32 (delay not an automatic bar); Section 6A framework; Assam Accord context.

Application: Rights and security concerns justify judicial review by a larger Bench. Meanwhile, Section 6A stands; operational directions issued.

Conclusion: Challenge is maintainable; reference made; Section 6A continues pending final decision; compliance steps ordered.

Glossary

Section 6A: Special citizenship rules for Assam tied to historic cutoff dates.
Article 355: Union’s duty to protect States against external aggression and internal disturbance.
NRC: National Register of Citizens—registry to identify lawful citizens.

FAQs

Not finally. It referred the matter to a larger Bench and kept Section 6A operational until that decision.

Because fundamental rights were at stake. Article 32 petitions are not dismissed for delay alone; context matters.

Update NRC, detect eligible citizens under 6A, identify/deport post-1971 illegal entrants, coordinate with Bangladesh, and tighten border control.

No single method is prescribed. It imposes a duty on the Union to protect states; tools can include administrative and border measures.

Reviewed by The Law Easy Constitutional Law Citizenship National Security

```

Comment

Nothing for now