NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court declared on Thursday that all Bangladeshi migrants who entered Assam on or after March 25, 1971, are illegal immigrants. Citing the significant negative impact on the state’s culture and demographics, the court urged both the Union and state governments to expedite the identification, detection, and deportation of these individuals.
A five-judge bench issued the ruling with a four-to-one majority, affirming the validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, introduced in December 1985 as part of the Assam Accord signed by the Rajiv Gandhi government in response to protests against the influx of Bangladeshi migrants.
Section 6A states that Bangladeshi migrants who entered Assam before January 1, 1966, are considered Indian citizens, while those who arrived between January 1966 and March 24, 1971, can obtain citizenship after ten years under certain conditions.
The majority opinion, authored by Justice Surya Kant and supported by Justices M M Sundresh and Manoj Misra, focused on the cultural and demographic challenges posed by illegal immigration and suggested remedial measures. Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud limited his remarks to upholding the validity of Section 6A, while Justice J B Pardiwala dissented, proposing to quash Section 6A prospectively.
The issue of illegal Bangladeshi immigration, ongoing since the 1947 partition, has been a contentious topic, with the BJP and AGP framing it as a threat to national integrity and security. Critics, however, argue that these concerns are exaggerated, often focusing on the religious background of the migrants.
The issue of illegal Bangladeshi immigration has significantly contributed to the BJP’s emergence as the dominant political force in Assam, diminishing the influence of both the Congress and the AGP. This topic has also become a focal point in the upcoming Jharkhand elections.
Justice Surya Kant addressed the threat posed by unchecked migration, referencing a two-decade-old ruling in the Sarbananda Sonowal case, which noted that “there can be no doubt that the state of Assam is facing ‘external aggression and internal disturbance’ due to the large-scale illegal migration of Bangladeshi nationals.”
The justices stated, “Immigrants who entered Assam on or after March 25, 1971, are not entitled to the protections of Section 6A and are therefore declared illegal immigrants. Consequently, Section 6A is rendered redundant for those who entered after this date.”
They emphasized the need for swift implementation of directives aimed at identifying, detecting, and deporting illegal Bangladeshi migrants post-March 25, 1971. The court highlighted that five key laws—the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act of 1950, the Foreigners Act of 1946, the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order of 1964, the Passport (Entry into India) Act of 1920, and the Passport Act of 1967—must work together to enforce the legislative intent of Section 6A, which is to prevent illegal migrants from entering Assam.
The court noted that despite the directives from the Sonowal ruling, implementation had been inadequate over the past 20 years, with only 97,714 cases pending before Foreigners Tribunals while millions of illegal migrants have entered the state. As a result, the Supreme Court decided to actively monitor the progress of the identification and deportation processes.
“Implementation of immigration and citizenship laws cannot be left solely to the discretion of authorities, making ongoing court oversight necessary,” Justice Kant stated.
In a 94-page opinion, Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud remarked, “The legislative aim of Section 6A was to balance the humanitarian needs of migrants of Indian origin with the economic and cultural impacts on Indian states. The criteria established in Section 6A—migration to Assam and the cut-off date of March 24, 1971—are reasonable.”
AASU Calls SC Ruling on Section 6A ‘Historic’; Ex-NRC Coordinator Raises Data Concerns
The All Assam Students’ Union (AASU), which spearheaded a six-year mass movement against illegal immigration leading to the Assam Accord of 1985, hailed Thursday’s Supreme Court decision as a “historic” victory in preserving the state’s identity and demographics. The court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, a key provision stemming from the tripartite agreement.
Samujjal Bhattacharjya, AASU’s chief adviser, stated that the ruling “effectively endorses the Assam Accord,” emphasizing that the pact’s commitments depend on the implementation of this clause, which had been challenged in court. “We wholeheartedly welcome the verdict. It confirms that the Assam agitation was driven by legitimate concerns, and all related provisions have been legally validated.”
Bijan Kumar Mahajan, a senior advocate at the Gauhati High Court, called for widespread acknowledgment of Section 6A’s importance, noting the long-standing debate over whether 1951 or 1971 should serve as the base year for citizenship. “The uncertainty is over. The Indian judiciary’s affirmation of Section 6A by a 4:1 majority is a testament to its significance.”
Abhijeet Sarma of Assam Public Works, the original petitioner that prompted the Supreme Court to initiate an enumeration exercise to update the NRC in the state, described the validation of Section 6A as “a historic resolution” of the ongoing debate.
However, he raised concerns regarding the authenticity of data in the updated NRC and the delays in its verification, viewing these issues as obstacles to implementing the Assam Accord despite the court’s order. “What about the future of the Assamese people? An authentic NRC is essential. The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores its relevance.”
In contrast, retired IAS officer Hitesh Dev Sarma, the former NRC coordinator in Assam, expressed discontent with the court’s decision. He described it as “a disheartening development” and “a terrible day for Assam” in a social media post.
He criticized the BJP-led state government for not seeking a comprehensive review of the NRC, suggesting this inaction may allow foreigners whose names appeared in the updated rolls—based on potentially flawed documentation—to gain citizenship. “There’s a risk that the current NRC, which includes numerous foreign names, will now be declared the final document.”
Section 6A stipulates that immigrants who entered Assam before January 1, 1966, are granted full citizenship rights, while those arriving between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, are subject to specific checks and conditions.
