SC's big decision on citizenship law, validity of Article 6A intact

What arguments were given in the application

• The petitioner argues that Section 6A is unconstitutional because it sets different dates for citizenship than Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution. In the Constitution, Parliament has the right to fix different dates.
• The Supreme Court said that every citizen must compulsorily follow the laws and Constitution of India. The explicit lack of an oath of allegiance before granting citizenship is not a violation of the law. The court said, we are not ready to interfere. S6A does not work permanently. People who came after 1971 cannot be given citizenship.
• The Supreme Court said the citizenship rules for immigrants who arrived between January 1, 1966, and March 24, 1971, were designed to serve a role consistent with the law. S6A allows for deportation of people who entered illegally after the cut off date. It cannot be said that immigration has affected the voting rights of the citizens of Assam. The petitioners have failed to prove any violation of rights.
• The Court said, S6A should not be construed restrictively to mean that any person may be searched and deported solely for the purpose of committing an alien act. The court further said that we see no reason why statutory identification under the IEAA cannot be used in conjunction with 6A to trace foreigners. There is no conflict between IEAA and 6A. The IEAA and Article 6A can be read in harmony.

What is Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955?

Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955 grants the right to Indian citizenship to foreign refugees of Indian origin who came to India after 1 January 1966 but before 25 March 1971. This provision was included after the Assam Accord in 1985, which was an agreement between the Government of India and the leaders of the Assam movement. Actually, the leaders of the Assam movement were demanding removal of illegal refugees from Bangladesh to Assam. When the freedom struggle in Bangladesh ended, the cut-off date of 25 March 1971 was added.

Several indigenous groups in Assam challenged this provision, with the petitioners claiming that the section legalizes people entering India illegally from Bangladesh. The petitioners demanded that the court declare Article 6A unconstitutional, saying it violates Articles 14, 21 and 29, but a five-judge bench rejected the demand with a majority of 4:1.