IN RE: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court, by 4:1 majority, upheld Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. This section gives Assam a special rule for citizenship, based on the 1985 Assam Accord. People who came before 1 Jan 1966 were citizens. Those who came between 1 Jan 1966 and 24 Mar 1971 could become citizens after meeting conditions. Those coming after 24 Mar 1971 are illegal migrants. The Court said Parliament had power to pass this law and the special rule for Assam is not unequal. Justice Pardiwala dissented.

Issues

• Did Parliament have power under the Constitution to make Section 6A?
• Does Section 6A break Article 14 by giving Assam a special rule?
• Does it harm cultural rights under Article 29 in Assam?
• Is there a breach of Article 355 (Union’s duty to protect states)?
• Are the cut-off dates and procedures arbitrary?
• Do delays in implementation make it unconstitutional?

Rules (Law Applied)

Facts — Timeline

1971: War in Bangladesh causes large migration into Assam.

15 Aug 1985: Assam Accord signed with the Union Government.

1985: Parliament inserts Section 6A for Assam’s special regime.

Cut-off Rules: Entry before 1 Jan 1966 → citizen; between 1 Jan 1966 and 24 Mar 1971 → conditional path; after 24 Mar 1971 → illegal migrant.

2014: Writs challenge Section 6A; matter sent to Constitution Bench.

5-Judge Bench: CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices Surya Kant, M.M. Sundresh, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra hear case.

Arguments

Judgment

Majority (4:1) upheld Section 6A. Parliament’s power over citizenship after the Constitution’s commencement is clear. Assam’s special rule is a valid response to an exceptional situation and fits the goal of the Assam Accord. Different dates (1 Jan 1966 and 24/25 Mar 1971) have historical reasons. Article 14 is not broken because the classification is reasonable. Article 29(1) is not violated by the presence of different groups. Article 355 is not breached since Section 6A regulates, not invites, migration.

Dissent (Pardiwala J.): Section 6A is arbitrary: unclear time limits, unclear “ordinary residence,” and puts heavy burden on the State. He would strike it down prospectively to protect people who already relied on it.

Ratio Decidendi

• Articles 5–11 deal with citizenship at the start; later citizenship is by Parliamentary law (Art. 246, List I-17).
• Assam-specific rule has an intelligible differentia and a rational link to the Accord’s aim → passes Article 14.
• Cut-off dates flow from electoral and historical milestones; not arbitrary.
• Cultural protection exists in the Constitution; challenge is to enforcement, not to Section 6A itself.

Why It Matters

The ruling settles the legal base of Assam’s citizenship framework. It balances border control, historic migration, and cultural protection. It also tells governments to fix implementation: efficient detection, fair hearings, and clear deportation steps. For students, it links federalism, equality, and citizenship policy in one case.

Key Takeaways

• Power: Parliament controls post-commencement citizenship law.
• Equality: Special rules can pass Article 14 if justified.
• Dates: 1 Jan 1966 and 24/25 Mar 1971 have clear historical bases.
• Culture: Article 29(1) protection stands; enforcement is the real gap.
• Dissent: Warns about vagueness and missing timelines.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “A-S-S-A-M”

• Accord-based special rule
• Specific dates (1966 / 1971)
• Supreme Court upholds
• Article 14 passes test
• Minority culture protected via enforcement

3-Step Hook:

1. Why special? Assam’s unique migration history.
2. What rule? Pre-1966 citizens; 1966–1971 conditional; post-1971 illegal.
3. What holding? Law valid; fix execution.

IRAC Outline

Glossary

Assam Accord

1985 agreement to address illegal migration into Assam.

Ordinary Residence

Living regularly at a place for a normal period; not a quick or casual stay.

Reasonable Classification

A valid legal grouping that is clear and linked to the law’s aim (Article 14).

Foreigners Tribunal

Body that decides whether a person is a foreigner under law.

FAQs

Related Cases

• Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005) — Deportation and border control directions.
• Other citizenship jurisprudence under Articles 5–11 — Constitutional foundation for citizenship.