How latest Supreme Court ruling furthers the debate on citizenship

On Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which introduced a cut-off day specifically nether the Assam Accord, the Court, portion upholding it, said that citizenship cannot beryllium interpreted successful “a antagonistic mode that selectively applies it to a peculiar conception portion labelling different faction arsenic ‘illegal immigrants’.”

In his opinion, concurring with the bulk view, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said that portion the Constitution recognises a “right to conserve culture,” the proviso indispensable beryllium work successful airy of the “multi-cultural and plural federation that India is.”

“The assertion of the petitioners is that Section 6A is violative of Article 29 due to the fact that it permits radical from Bangladesh who person a chiseled civilization to beryllium ordinarily nonmigratory successful Assam and unafraid citizenship which infringes upon their close to conserve Assamese culture,” the Court noted portion rejecting the argument.

These observations are important arsenic they signifier the backdrop of different Constitutional situation involving citizenship that is besides pending earlier the Supreme Court — the situation to the 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act.

The contentious caller law, introduced arsenic Section 6B of the Citizenship Act, seeks to assistance citizenship to a people of migrants belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi oregon Christian communities — not Muslim — who entered India earlier December 31, 2014 from 3 neighbouring countries: Pakistan, Afghanistan oregon Bangladesh.

The CAA carves retired an objection for tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram oregon Tripura arsenic included successful the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution and the country covered nether “The Inner Line.”

The amendment was challenged earlier the Supreme Court successful 2020 by the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML). Since then, implicit 200 petitions person been filed and tagged with the IUML’s situation including by the Assam Pradesh Congress Committee and the Asom Gana Parishad.

“We are besides apprised of the information that Parliament has promulgated the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, and much precocious connected 11.03.2024 the Government of India has notified the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024. However, we are not dealing with these provisions fixed that neither of the parties relied upon these provisions implicit the people of the proceedings earlier us,” the bulk sentiment stated successful a footnote.

Particularly, successful Assam, the cut-off day successful the caller instrumentality could beryllium astatine likelihood with the March 25, 1971 the cut-off day for citizenship, that the Supreme Court has present upheld. This dichotomy does not use for the remainder of India but the authorities volition person to negociate however Section 6B tin beryllium valid for Assam, fixed that the SC has present upheld Section 6A.

While the SC ruling settles the 1971 cut-off date, it besides leaves unfastened the larger question of what happens to those who migrated successful the 5 decades since then.

The bulk ruling, recognising this, said that “while the statutory strategy of Section 6A is constitutionally valid, determination is inadequate enforcement of the aforesaid — starring to the anticipation of wide injustice. Further, the volition of Section 6A, i.e., to restrict amerciable migration post-1971 has besides not been fixed due effect.”

While determination is simply a ineligible process for amerciable immigrants to beryllium detected, detained and deported, these are issues that impact larger considerations. The Supreme Court has, essentially, upheld the Parliament’s powers to framework citizenship rules some successful presumption of a governmental solution and a legislative framework. These issues volition beryllium tested again earlier Parliament and courts.

The bulk sentiment said that it was the “framers’ volition to spend Parliament astir unrestricted flexibility successful crafting laws pertaining to citizenship.”