The Supreme Court while upholding the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, on Thursday expressed the need for more robust policy measures to curb the illegal immigration and enhance border regulation.

Section 6A of the Citizenship Act grants Indian citizenship to immigrants from Bangladesh who entered Assam on or after January 1, 1966 but before March 25, 1971.

A Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant, M M Sundresh, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra delivered separate judgements.

"Regarding the inquiry into the estimated influx of illegal migrants post March 25, 1971, the Union of India was unable to provide precise figures due to the clandestine nature of such inflows. This underscores the necessity for more robust policy measures to curb illicit movements and enhance border regulation. Additionally, it was disclosed that approximately 97,714 cases are pending before the foreigner tribunals, and nearly 850 kilometre of border remain unfenced or inadequately monitored," said Justice Surya Kant, writing for himself and Justices M M Sundresh and Manoj Misra.

Justice Kant noted the intention of Section 6A to restrict illegal immigration post-1971 had not been given proper effect.

"Although Section 6A conferred citizenship rights exclusively to immigrants arriving before this cut-off date, there still seems to be an ongoing influx of migrants through various border states of India. Due to porous borders and incomplete fencing, this unceasing migration imposes a significant challenge," he wrote in a separate 184-page judgement concurring with the CJI.

The apex court said the directions issued in Sarbananda Sonowal judgments for identification, detection and deportation of Illegal Bangladeshi immigrants were required to be given effect to for the purpose of deporting the illegal immigrants.

It said the statutory machinery and tribunals tasked with the identification and detection of illegal immigrants or foreigners in Assam were inadequate.

The top court opined the implementation of immigration and citizenship legislations could not be left to the discretion of the authorities, necessitating court's constant monitoring.

Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by The Telegraph Online staff and has been published from a syndicated feed.