In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955
Background
Section 6A was added to the Citizenship Act, 1955 to implement the 1985 Assam Accord, a political settlement addressing decades of migration into Assam from what is now Bangladesh. It gave automatic citizenship to migrants who entered Assam before 1 January 1966, and a special registration process for those who entered between 1966 and 24 March 1971, while treating anyone entering after that date as an illegal immigrant to be detected and deported. A batch of writ petitions challenged Section 6A as unconstitutional, arguing it singled out Assam unfairly compared to other border states, set no real deadline for the process, and diluted the political and cultural rights of Assamese people.
Decision Breakdown
By a 4:1 majority, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A. The majority held that Assam faced a demographically unique influx of migrants justifying a distinct legislative solution under Article 14's "reasonable classification" test, and that the provision did not violate Articles 6, 7, 11, 29, or 355 of the Constitution. The Court also directed continued monitoring of enforcement mechanisms (detection and deportation of post-1971 illegal immigrants) by a dedicated bench. Justice Pardiwala dissented, holding that Section 6A should be struck down (with prospective effect only) because it set no temporal limit for detecting and processing 1966-1971 migrants and placed the entire burden of detection on the state, meaning the "problem" the Assam Accord was meant to solve was never actually resolved on the ground.
Lesson Learnt
A law crafted to resolve a specific historical and political crisis in one region (here, the Assam Accord's citizenship compromise) can pass constitutional muster even though it treats that region differently from the rest of the country, so long as the differential treatment is genuinely tied to a real, provable difference in circumstances.