In a historic verdict pronounced yesterday, the Supreme Court of India declared all Bangladeshis who entered Assam after March 25, 1971, illegal immigrants. The apex court further emphasized that illegal immigration has grossly altered Assam’s culture and demography, hence both the Union and state governments have been urged to hasten their efforts at identifying, detecting, and deporting these migrants.
Supreme Court declares all migrants in Assam To Arrive Assam after March 1971 Illegal
A five-judge Constitution bench ruled on the matter by a four-to-one majority, upholding the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. Section 6A, which was introduced in December 1985, was one of the most important provisions of the Assam Accord signed between the central government, with then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi at its helm, and leaders of the Assam agitation protesting the massive influx of illegal migrants from Bangladesh.
The Assam Accord and Section 6A
The Assam Accord, signed in 1985, was an effort to address the long-pending controversy regarding illegal migration from Bangladesh, which for decades had remained a bastion of political agitation in the state. Section 6A of the Citizenship Act catered to some form of cut-off period for granting citizenship status to certain categories of migrants from Bangladesh. The people who were migrant only those who entered Assam before January 1, 1966 were considered the Indian citizens. This means that those who entered Assam between January 1, 1966 and March 24, 1971 would be granted citizenship after 10 years as long as they meet the given conditions.
In so far as the entry into Assam of any Bangladeshi national after March 25, 1971, being Bangladesh’s declaration of independence from Pakistan, was illegal migrants, Thursday’s Supreme Court order reiterated its earlier stance while asking for immediate steps to deal with the illegal influx.
Challenge Section 6A
Validity of Section 6A: The Supreme Court had come under attack on the ground that it had created a different cut-off date for Assam compared to the dates stipulated under the Constitution in behalf of granting citizenship to foreign nationals. Under the Indian Constitution, citizenship could be granted based upon the cut-off date of July 19, 1948, as per the Citizenship Act, 1955. In this respect, it was claimed that Section 6A diluted this timeline by providing citizenship to migrants who entered Assam after the cut-off date of July 19, 1948, in unfair circumstances.
Whereas the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A, it ruled that the section was an integral part of the Assam Accord, given the large-scale influx of migrants into Assam from Bangladesh.
Supreme Court Judgment
In the landmark majority judgment authored by Justice Surya Kant with support from Justices M.M. Sundresh and Manoj Misra, Supreme Court restricted its discussion on the legal issue of Section 6A but the judgement was designed on the cultural and demographic impact of the entry of Bangladeshi migrants on the identity of Assam. In his very long opinion of 185 pages, Justice Kant deliberated upon the strain illegal migration had brought upon this unique identity, language, and socio-economic resources available in Assam.
The court highlighted this massive influx has mounted stern challenges to the indigenous people by jeopardizing their lifestyle and seriously undermining the social cohesion of the state. The verdict thus ordered remedial steps in the protection of Assam’s demography and its cultural heritage. The crisis had to be addressed by expediting the process among the central as well as state governments to identify, detect, and deport such illegal migrants.
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has also declared that it would closely monitor the detection and deportation process initiated in Assam to take timely and effective steps against the infiltrators. This monitoring mechanism is likely to heighten measures taken to address the problem and which continues to haunt India after all these years.
Diverging Opinions
Though a majority of the judges held that Section 6A is legal and urged the country to rush headlong into serious attempts to deal with the migrant crisis, the court was sharply divided. Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud agreed with the majority verdict endorsing Section 6A, but refused to tackle the broader cultural and demographic challenge that this phenomenon posed: he ruled that this provision also was constitutionally valid, citing the imperative need to respect the Assam Accord.
However, Justice J.B. Pardiwala was in dissent with an appeal for prospective quashing of Section 6A. He said that what was concerning him about the long term effects of that provision was that it was made possible only by continuing a troublesome framework that shortchanged Assam’s interests. While that gives a sense of the debate, Justice Pardiwala’s dissent more solemnly reminded the country of the need for uniform citizenship rights applicable across the nation, in keeping with constitutional direction and noted the dangers of adopting the cut-off date for citizenship rights, which had brought in those who had arrived after the constitutionally laid down date.
Call for Quick Action
The decision is likely to significantly alter Assam’s political and social texture. Illegal immigration from Bangladesh has been a contentious issue in the state since the very beginning-the protests, agitations, political movements have seen this major concern. This being said, the Assam Accord, though a landmark agreement, did not effectively address this issue as successive governments have been rather ineffective in enunciating the provisions arising thereof.
Thursday’s judgement brings the pressure anew on both the Union and the Assam governments to start concrete steps in identifying and deporting illegal migrants who have entered the State after March 25, 1971. The SC’s decision to monitor the process should tell one of the seriousness of the issue in view, and it would not be out of place to expect increased pressures on the authorities also from the SC to make sure that due action is meted out.
Judgment/Verdict: Expected to re-ignite political debates both in the state and at the Centre, with various parties gracing the podium to voice their opinion on the judgment. For many in Assam, it marks a very overdue step toward dealing with the demographic questions caused by migration. However, human rights groups as well as the migrant communities may still have some misgivings about the on-ground efficacy of deportation in light of the complex historical and sociopolitical relationship between Assam and Bangladesh.
Assam will not find it an easy job going ahead balancing its legal obligations with the imperative need to protect human rights and social harmony as it continues moving forward on the directives of the Supreme Court. It is a new critical chapter in the continued struggle of Assam as the state grapples with the legacy of migration on the future course of the region.