INTRODUCTION The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India has given quietus to controversies surrounding Sec.6A of Citizenship Act 1955 in through the Constitution Bench Judgment in RE: SECTION 6A OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT 1955. Following is a analysis of the implications Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, grants citizenship to a specific category of migrants from Bangladesh to Assam. Section 6A is a special provision inserted into the 1955 Act in furtherance of a Memorandum of Settlement called the “Assam Accord” signed on August 15, 1985, by the then Rajiv Gandhi government with the representatives of the Assam Movement. In the case of Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha v. Union of India[1], a two-Judge Bench referred the matter concerning the constitutional validity of Section 6A to a Constitution Bench. The petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 6A, asserting that it contravenes Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution. FACTS OF THE CASE In 1985, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 1985 was enacted to include Section 6A to the Citizenship Act of 1955. The provision grants citizenship to persons of Indian origin who migrated to Assam from Bangladesh. The provision classifies the class of migrants into two categories based on when they entered Assam: those who entered Assam before 1 January 1966 and those who came to Assam after 1 January 1966 but before 25 March 1971. Section 6A (2) provides that a person would be deemed to be a citizen of India as on 1 January 1966 if the following conditions are fulfilled: a. The person must be of Indian origin. A person is deemed to be of Indian origin if they or either of their parents or their grandparents were born in undivided India b. The person should have come to Assam from a ‘specified territory’ before 1 January 1966. ‘Specified territory’ is defined as territories included in Bangladesh immediately before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 1985. All those persons who were included in the Electoral roll used for the purpose of the General Election to the House of People in 1967 must be considered; and c. The person should have been an ordinary resident in Assam since the date of entry into Assam. Section 6A (3) states that a person must register to secure citizenship in accordance with the rules made by the Central Government under Section 18 if the following conditions are fulfilled: a. The person must be of Indian origin; b. The person must have entered Assam on or after 1 January 1966 but before 25 March 1971 from the specified territory, that is, Bangladesh; c. The person must have been ordinarily resident in Assam since the date of entry into Assam; and d. The person must be detected as a foreigner in accordance with the provisions of the Foreigners Act 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order 1964. The Explanation to Section 6A (3) stipulates that the opinion of the Tribunal constituted under the Foreigners Tribunals Order declaring a person to be a Foreigner is deemed as sufficient proof for requirement (d). Whether the person satisfies the other requirements must be decided on the basis of the opinion of the Tribunal, if there is a finding in the opinion with respect to that requirement. If the opinion does not have a finding with respect to the other requirement(s), the registering authority must refer the questions to the Tribunal. Section 6A (4) states that if the person who has registered under sub-Section (3) is included in the electoral roll for any assembly or parliamentary constituency, their name must be deleted from the roll for a period of ten years from the date of detection as a foreigner. However, a person who has been registered will have the same rights and obligations as a citizen of India except having their name included in the electoral roll for ten years. They will also have the right to obtain passport under the Passport Act 1967. Upon the completion of ten years from the date of detection as a foreigner, a person who has registered would deem to be a citizen of India. The petitioners-initiated proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution, inter alia, for challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. By an order dated 17 December 2014, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India referred the case to a Constitution Bench citing multiple issues. On 17th October 2024, the Constitution Bench upheld the constitutionality of section 6A of the Citizenship Act in a majority judgment of 4:1ratio. ISSUES Whether Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955 constitutionally valid? Critical and Legal Analysis Legislative Competence of Parliament to Enact 6A Petitioner contends that (a) the legislative domain concerning the grant of citizenship to migrants from Bangladesh to India is already governed by Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution; and (b) any modification of the cut-off date specified in Articles 6 and 7 for such migrants requires a constitutional amendment, not a parliamentary legislation. To counter this, respondents contend that, the amendment is permissible in view of Article 11. But the Supreme Court held that Parliament has the power to enact laws on citizenship. This power is provided by Entry 17 of List 1 of the Seventh Schedule, which reads “Citizenship, naturalisation and aliens”. Further, the present situation is also covered by Entry 19, which reads, “Admission into, and emigration and expulsion from, India; passports and visas”. However, the parties are discordant to the extent of such power and whether law made by the Parliament can derogate from Article 6 and other provisions of Part II. Finally the Court concluded that the Parliament indeed possesses the legislative power to enact laws concerning citizenship and that this authority is not restricted by the provisions of Part II of the Constitution. Whether Section 6A is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution The petitioners contended that Section 6A is violative of Article 14 on three grounds: (a) Section 6A is under-inclusive because it confers citizenship only to migrants to Assam; (b) there was no justification to single out Assam to the exclusion of other border States that border Bangladesh since they all form a homogenous class; and (c) the provision prescribes a different cut-off date for granting citizenship to migrants who enter Assam as opposed to other States. The Supreme Court observed that for an exclusion of a group to be valid under Article 14, it must rest on reasonable grounds, and the objective of the provision effecting such exclusion must be directly related to its purpose. The Court noted that Section 6A was enacted with the dual objectives of reducing the influx of migrants to India and addressing the situation of those who had already migrated. It highlighted that the Assam Accord served as a political resolution to the issue of increasing migration, while Section 6A represented a legislative measure to address the same. The Court further observed that earlier laws addressing undocumented migration in Assam were not extended to other states because Assam posed a unique challenge to the Union due to the magnitude and impact of migration. Although states like West Bengal, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram share longer borders with Bangladesh, the number of immigrants in these states is significantly lower. The Court pointed out that Assam had 40 lakh immigrants within its relatively smaller population and limited land area, and held that Assam’s immigration problems are unique compared to other states. The objective of the law to reduce migration in the state has a clear nexus. The cut-off dates are rational, as individuals who entered Assam after 25 March 1971 were refugees fleeing Operation Searchlight. making the decision to focus specifically on Assam a rational and justified consideration. The petitioners argued that Section 6A violates Article 14 by not applying the same laws to neighbouring border states. In response, the union stated that the Constitution does not mandate universal application of every law and explained that the Legislature has the authority to enact special laws aimed at achieving specific objectives and, for that purpose, can classify persons, objects, or transactions to which the law applies. He emphasized that differential treatment is only unlawful if it is arbitrary or lacks a rational connection to the statute’s objective. Referring to Ajoy Kumar Banerjee and Others v. Union of India (1984), the counsel for the highlighted the Supreme Court's ruling that Article 14 does not prevent the Legislature from implementing reforms selectively. Counsel for the Union argued that classifications could be justified on historical grounds or administrative necessity, asserting that the Assam Accord represents one such reform based on historical considerations. Additionally, the union cited R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India (1993), where the Court held that territorial classifications do not contravene Article 14. Did the enactment of Section 6A lead to internal disturbances or external aggression, warranting the Union’s protection under Article 355 of the Constitution? The court observed that such an interpretation would lead to disastrous consequences and pointed out that Article 355 is found in Part 18 of the Constitution, which deals with “emergency powers” that can only be invoked by the Union. Reading the duty in Article 355 into a right would effectively place the emergency powers with citizens and courts,” resulting in catastrophic consequences for the federal structure of the Constitution. While analyzing the historical aspects of Art.355, it was not included in the Draft Constitution of 1948. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar later introduced the provision to justify the Union's intervention in the administration of States under the emergency powers conferred by the Constitution. Dr. Ambedkar explained that in a federal setup like the Indian Constitution, where States possess sovereign legislative powers within their domain, the Centre can intervene in State administration only if the Constitution imposes an obligation on the Centre to do so. In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, Justice Sawant, writing for himself and Justice Singh, referred to the Constituent Assembly debates and clarified that Article 355 does not serve as an independent source of power for the Centre to interfere in State governance. Instead, it functions as a justification for actions taken under Articles 356 and 357 Whether section 6A violates cultural rights under Article 29 of the Constitution. The petitioners argued that Assam possesses a unique culture and script, which they have the constitutional right to protect and preserve under Article 29. They contended that Section 6A, by facilitating increased foreign immigration into the state, infringed upon this right, thereby threatening Assam's cultural identity. The Court highlighted the scope of Article 29(1), noting that while its heading refers to the "protection of interests of minorities," the text is not confined to minorities. The provision grants the right to "any section of citizens" with a distinct language, script, or culture. Therefore, Article 29 applies to both minorities and non-minorities, provided two conditions are met: (a) the group constitutes a section of citizens, and (b) the group possesses a distinct language, script, or culture. The Court emphasized that the right under Article 29(1) is the right to "conserve" this distinct identity. It recognized that the people of Assam, or the Assamese, qualify as a section of citizens with a unique language, script, and culture, which they are entitled to protect and conserve under Article 29(1). CONCLUSION In its judgment, the Supreme Court provided a comprehensive analysis of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and its constitutional validity. The Court underscored that Section 6A was enacted to address the unique and pressing issues arising from the influx of migrants into Assam, which posed significant challenges to the state’s demographic and cultural fabric. The provision was framed as part of the Assam Accord, a political and legislative solution aimed at maintaining peace while managing migration and its implications. The Court examined the petitioners' claims that Section 6A not violated various constitutional provisions, including Articles 6, 7, 10, 11, and 14. It clarified that: Articles 6 and 7: These Articles define the rights of migrants to Indian citizenship based on specific cut-off dates post-Partition. The Court held that Section 6A does not alter these provisions in a manner that contravenes the Constitution, as its intent and framework align with the constitutional scheme. Articles 10 and 11: Article 10 ensures continuity of citizenship rights, and Article 11 empowers Parliament to regulate citizenship through legislation. The Court emphasized that Section 6A was enacted under the authority granted by Article 11, and also entry 17 List 1 and therefore, it does not infringe upon the Constitution. Article 14: The petitioners argued that Section 6A violated the right to equality by applying different rules to Assam compared to other border states. The Court rejected this claim, noting that the classification of Assam was based on rational considerations. Assam faced a unique magnitude and impact of migration, justifying special legislative treatment. The Court reaffirmed that differential treatment is permissible under Article 14 as long as it is based on intelligible criteria and has a rational nexus to the legislative objective. Additionally, the Court addressed the cultural concerns raised under Article 29, recognizing that the Assamese people, with their distinct language, script, and culture, have a constitutional right to conserve their identity. It held that Section 6A does not undermine this right but rather seeks to balance the protection of Assam’s demographic and cultural integrity with the humanitarian considerations for migrants. In conclusion, the Supreme Court articulated that Section 6A is a constitutionally valid provision aimed at addressing Assam’s unique challenges. It does not violate Articles 6, 7, 10, or 11, nor does it infringe upon Article 14, as the legislation is neither arbitrary nor devoid of a rational basis. The judgment reinforced the principle that special laws tailored to address distinct regional issues are consistent with constitutional values.