By incorporating the fraught issue of citizenship into the Constitution’s definition of fraternity and pluralism and firmly fixing the cut-off date for Assam citizens to acquire citizenship as March 25, 1971, The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday (October 17) Promoting an inclusive view of citizenship.
“Our interpretation of the Constitution and precedents is that brotherhood requires ‘coexistence and mutual accommodation’ between people of different backgrounds and social circumstances,” Justice Surya Kant said, echoing the majority’s view.
Section 6A of the Citizenship Act specifically stipulates cut-off dates under the Assam Accord and the court, while upholding this provision, said citizenship cannot be “construed in a negative manner by selectively applying it to a particular group” , while labeling another group.” The faction is ‘Illegal Immigrants’. “
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, concurring with the view of the majority, said that while the Constitution recognized the “right to protection of culture”, the provision must be read in the light of “India being a multicultural and diverse country”.
“The petitioners claim that Article 6A is violative of Article 29 as it allows Bangladeshis with a unique culture to reside permanently in Assam and acquire citizenship, which infringes upon their right to protect the culture of Assam,” the court noted .
These observations are crucial as they form the backdrop to another constitutional challenge involving citizenship that is also before the Supreme Court – the challenge to the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019.
The controversial new law, introduced as Section 6B of the Citizenship Act, seeks to provide legal benefits to those from the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Zoroastrian or Christian communities who entered India before December 31, 2014. Citizenship is granted to a category of immigrants who are non-Muslims.
The CAA carves out exceptions for tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram or Tripura (included in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution) and areas covered by the ‘Inner Line’ .
The Indian Muslim League (IUML) challenged the amendment in the Supreme Court in 2020. Since then, more than 200 petitions have been filed by various parties, including the Assam Congress Committee and the Asom Gana Parishad, tagged IUML’s challenge.
“We are also informed that Parliament enacted the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 and recently, the Government of India issued the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024 on March 11, 2024. However, we do not deal with Whereas in the proceedings before us, neither party relied on these provisions,” the majority opinion noted in a footnote.
Particularly in Assam, the cut-off date in the new law may be inconsistent with the citizenship cut-off date of March 25, 1971, currently upheld by the Supreme Court. This dichotomy does not apply to the rest of India, but given the SC’s current support for Article 6A, the government must negotiate on how Article 6B applies to Assam.
While the Supreme Court ruling established the 1971 cutoff, it also left open a larger question: What happens to those who immigrated in the 50 years since then.
The majority ruling recognized this, stating that “while the statutory scheme of section 6A was constitutionally valid, its implementation was weak – leading to the potential for widespread injustice. Furthermore, the intention of section 6A, which was to limit post-1971 illegal immigration, The intention was also not given the proper effect.
While there are legal procedures for detecting, detaining and deporting illegal immigrants, these issues involve broader considerations. The Supreme Court essentially upheld the power of Parliament to formulate rules for citizens in terms of political solutions and legislative frameworks. These issues will be tested again in Parliament and in the courts.
“The Framers intended that Congress should have virtually unlimited flexibility in making laws relating to citizenship,” the majority opinion said.
