Supreme Court Upholds Section 6A of Citizenship Act: A Controversial Path

The Supreme Court upheld Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, granting citizenship to Bangladeshi immigrants entering Assam before March 25, 1971. Chief Justice Chandrachud highlighted the law's aim to control migration. A minority verdict dissented, citing potential misuse. The verdict may intensify debate on immigration policies in Assam.

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, a pivotal component that grants citizenship to Bangladeshi immigrants who entered Assam before March 25, 1971. In a decisive ruling, Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud emphasized the provision's purpose in controlling migration flows while accounting for those who have already settled.

Despite the majority verdict, Justice J B Pardiwala dissented, arguing that the open-ended nature of Section 6A leaves it susceptible to abuse. The verdict is likely to invigorate discussions surrounding immigration laws and their implementation across Assam, where historical migration patterns continue to influence political and cultural discourse.

While the ruling underscores the need for a robust framework to manage illegal immigration, it also calls into question the adequacy of existing systems in place. Justice Surya Kant highlighted the need for continuous oversight to prevent unauthorized entry via porous borders, stressing the need for legislative and administrative vigilance.

(With inputs from agencies.)