The cut-off date for the grant of citizenship to foreign immigrants in Assam will continue to be March 25, 1971, the Supreme Court has decided, rejecting pleas to advance the date to July 19, 1949, on a par with the rest of the country.

A five-judge constitution bench on Thursday upheld by a 4:1 majority the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which stipulates the separate cut-off date for Assam.

However, the bench expressed dismay at the government’s failure to detect
and deport foreigners from Assam.

It requested the Chief Justice of India to constitute a special bench to periodically monitor the measures taken to deport illegal immigrants, saying the task cannot be left entirely to the executive.

Section 6A divides immigrants from the then East Pakistan to Assam into two main groups.

Section 6A grants deemed (automatic) citizenship to those who entered Assam before January 1, 1966, and “citizenship by registration” to those who entered between January 1, 1966, and March 24, 1971.

Members of the second group need to have registered themselves with the appropriate authority to be able to claim citizenship.

Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant, Justice M.M. Sundaresh and Justice Manoj Misra delivered the majority opinion. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, in his separate dissenting judgment, struck down Section 6A as “unconstitutional” with prospective effect, that is, making it inapplicable from the date of Thursday’s judgment.

Justice Pardiwala’s opinion will be only of academic relevance since it’s the majority view that will prevail.

The separate cut-off date for Assam was agreed in the Assam Accord of 1985 between the Centre, the state government and the leaders of the “anti-foreigner movement” in the state.

The petitioners — the Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha — wanted the cut-off date for the state to be the same as the rest of the country, which is July 19, 1949.

The bench also rejected the petitioners’ plea that Section 6A was discriminatory since similar provisions had not been enacted for Bengal, which too witnessed large-scale immigration from East Pakistan and, subsequently, Bangladesh.

“We hold that while the statutory scheme of Section 6A is constitutionally valid, there is inadequate enforcement of the same — leading to the possibility of widespread injustice,” Justice Kant, who authored the main judgment, said.

“Further, the intention of Section 6A, i.e., to restrict illegal immigration post-1971, has also not been given proper effect.”

Highlights of the majority verdict:

◉ Immigrants who entered Assam before 1966 are deemed citizens. Those who entered between January 1, 1966, and March 24, 1971, can seek citizenship subject to the eligibility conditions prescribed in Section 6A.

◉ Those who entered Assam on or after March 25, 1971, are illegal immigrants.

◉ The statutory machinery and tribunals tasked with identifying illegal immigrants or foreigners in Assam are inadequate…. (The matter needs) constant monitoring by the apex court.

On Bengal being exempted from special legislation like Section 6A, the bench observed that “political entities” had entered into the Assam Accord in the exercise of their legitimate rights.

“However, it may not be appropriate for us to venture into the exercise of analysing whether similar agreements should have been pursued with other states like West Bengal,” it said.

“Hence, even if some states like West Bengal were placed similarly to Assam, that in and of itself would not lead to holding Section 6A unconstitutional.”

Highlights of Justice Pardiwala’s separate judgment:

◉ Immigrants who entered Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 24, 1971, (both inclusive) and who have been detected as foreigners and have not registered themselves with the appropriate authority within the prescribed time limit will no longer be eligible for citizenship.

◉ If their applications are pending before the foreigners tribunal, or their appeals (against any tribunal order) before any court, they will not be affected by Thursday’s (dissenting) judgment until their pleas have been disposed of.

◉ If anyone is apprehended as an illegal immigrant after the pronouncement of this (dissenting) judgment, Section 6A will not apply to them.