The case revolved around whether the law, which grants citizenship to refugees from Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) who arrived between January 1, 1966, and March 24, 1971, violates the Constitution. The legal provision has been under scrutiny for years, with numerous petitions challenging its validity. The Supreme Court's ruling effectively ensures that these migrants, who met the cut-off criteria, remain recognized as Indian citizens.
The Assam Accord, signed in 1985 between the Government of India, the All Assam Students' Union (AASU), and other parties, sought to bring stability to Assam, which was facing demographic changes due to large-scale migration from Bangladesh. Section 6A was introduced to legally implement the Accord's promise, granting citizenship to those who arrived in the designated period while excluding those who came after March 25, 1971. The provision aimed to balance the humanitarian aspect of accommodating refugees with the socio-political concerns of native Assamese people over preserving their cultural identity.
Legal challenges to Section 6A gained traction with various groups arguing that it undermines the rights of the indigenous Assamese population by altering the state’s demographic balance. Concerns about illegal immigration and cultural displacement have fueled opposition to the provision for decades, with some groups suggesting that it violates fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution, including the right to equality.
During the hearings, the Supreme Court deliberated on arguments from both sides. Petitioners challenging the law contended that Assam has borne an overwhelming burden of migrants, affecting its cultural and demographic fabric. They emphasized the need to preserve Assam's indigenous culture and protect the rights of its original inhabitants. Conversely, the government and supporters of the law, including representatives of the AASU, defended Section 6A as an essential part of the Assam Accord, which helped restore peace in the region following years of agitation.
One of the arguments in favor of Section 6A, presented by legal counsel for the AASU, pointed out that the law has been poorly implemented rather than fundamentally flawed. The delays and inefficiencies in the identification of migrants through Foreigners Tribunals have led to the perception that the provision encourages illegal migration. However, it was stressed that Section 6A only applies to those who entered India before the cut-off date in 1971, a point reiterated by several parties defending the provision.
The Supreme Court’s decision is seen as pivotal for the region, given the historical tensions surrounding the issue of migration. Assam has long been a hotspot for anti-migrant sentiment, leading to prolonged protests and agitation. The National Register of Citizens (NRC) exercise conducted in Assam to identify illegal immigrants has also brought Section 6A into focus, with critics arguing that it contradicts efforts to exclude undocumented migrants from the state.
However, the judgment does not come without reservations. Critics have expressed concerns that the decision could embolden further migration, despite the provision’s strict cut-off dates. Moreover, questions remain about how the ruling will be implemented, particularly in light of Assam’s complex demographic dynamics and the contentious nature of citizenship claims.
The Supreme Court ruling also holds broader implications for the discourse on multiculturalism and migration in India. During the hearings, legal experts debated whether India should adopt a “salad bowl” model that celebrates cultural diversity or a “melting pot” approach that encourages assimilation into a singular national identity. Supporters of the “salad bowl” argument highlighted Assam’s unique cultural landscape, shaped by centuries of migration, while also stressing the importance of maintaining a peaceful co-existence between different ethnic groups.
This ruling reaffirms the delicate balance between upholding the rights of refugees under international humanitarian obligations and protecting the interests of local communities in Assam. The decision is expected to provide legal clarity for thousands of individuals who have faced uncertainty over their citizenship status for decades, while also signaling the government's commitment to addressing Assam’s migration issues within the framework of the Assam Accord.