Significance of the Judgment
Supreme Court ruling (October 2024) upheld Section 6A of the Citizenship Act.
Grants citizenship to migrants from East Pakistan (Bangladesh) who arrived in Assam before March 25, 1971.
The ruling raises concerns over constitutional violations and potential negative impacts on Assam’s demographics and cultural identity.
Constitutional Concerns
Article 14: Court’s justification for treating Assam differently (smaller population) is arbitrary and lacks consistency with other border states like West Bengal.
Court ruled that migrant influx doesn’t affect Assamese culture (Article 29), yet acknowledged the significant cultural and linguistic shifts in Assam.
Article 29(1): Guarantees protection of cultural and linguistic identity, which is undermined by the influx of migrants.
The Bengali-speaking population increased significantly, while the proportion of Assamese speakers declined (from 69.3% to 48.38% between 1951 and 2011), leading to cultural displacement.
Flaws in Section 6A
The Court’s interpretation of Article 29(1) (right to conserve culture) is flawed.
The mere recognition of this right is insufficient if the State's policies erode the cultural identity it aims to protect.
Section 6A remains applicable over 40 years after the cut-off date (March 25, 1971), making it outdated and arbitrary in current times.
Impact of Section 6A and Court's Ruling
Section 6A(3): Places the burden of initiating proceedings on the state, without a mechanism for voluntary self-identification by migrants, leading to indefinite and inefficient processing of cases.
Foreigners' tribunal: Overburdened with cases due to the lack of clear criteria, causing delays and confusion in processing cases.
The indefinite application of Section 6A perpetuates its relevance, despite changing circumstances and the law’s original intent being outdated.
The ruling seems designed to justify Section 6A rather than critically assess its constitutional flaws and negative consequences for Assam’s indigenous population.
COMMENTS