Table of Contents
Introduction
The article discusses a 2024 Supreme Court ruling that upheld Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which allows people who migrated from Bangladesh to Assam before March 25, 1971, to get Indian citizenship.
This law was introduced after the Assam Accord of 1985 to address concerns about preserving Assam’s culture and managing migration.
Critics argue the Court’s decision ignored key issues, such as how migration has harmed Assamese culture, violated constitutional protections like Article 29, and how the law has become outdated and ineffective. The process for handling migrant cases is also slow and confusing, leading to further problems.
Article Explanation
In October 2024, the Supreme Court of India made an important decision regarding Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. This law was introduced to address the issue of migration from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) to Assam.
It allows people who arrived in Assam before March 25, 1971, to apply for Indian citizenship. The Court upheld the validity of Section 6A, saying it does not violate the Indian Constitution. However, this ruling has raised concerns about its fairness, its impact on Assam’s culture, and its long-term relevance.
Assam Accord 1985
Section 6A has its roots in the Assam Accord of 1985, an agreement made between the Indian government and leaders of the Assam Movement. The movement began because people in Assam were worried about the large number of migrants entering the state. These migrants were seen as a threat to Assam’s culture, economy, and political balance.
The Assam Accord created rules to address these concerns. Migrants who came to Assam before January 1, 1966, were granted Indian citizenship. Those who came between 1966 and 1971 could get citizenship after living in Assam for ten years. Migrants who arrived after March 25, 1971, were considered illegal and could be deported. Section 6A was added to the Citizenship Act to enforce these rules.
Problems with Section 6A
Critics of the Supreme Court’s decision point out several issues. One major concern is the contradictory reasoning used by the Court. The Court justified the special focus on Assam by saying that the state had faced a significant cultural and political impact due to migration.
It argued that Assam’s smaller population and land area meant the influx of migrants affected it more than states like West Bengal or Tripura. However, the Court also said that the migration had not significantly harmed Assamese culture or language.
These two points appear to contradict each other, raising questions about the logic behind the decision.
Another issue is that Section 6A might violate Article 29 of the Indian Constitution. Article 29 guarantees the right of groups to protect their cultural and linguistic identities.
Many Assamese people believe the large number of migrants has made it harder for them to preserve their unique culture and language.
For example, studies show that from 1951 to 2011, the percentage of Assamese speakers in Assam dropped from 69.3% to 48.38%, while the percentage of Bengali speakers increased.
Critics argue that this demographic shift represents a loss of Assamese identity, but the Court did not adequately address this concern. Instead, it said Assamese people still had the right to take steps to protect their culture, even though the circumstances make this increasingly difficult.
Another criticism of Section 6A is that it has become outdated and unreasonable over time. The law was introduced decades ago to deal with migration issues of that period.
However, it still allows people to apply for citizenship under rules set in 1985, even though more than 40 years have passed since the cut-off date of March 25, 1971. This has made the law seem irrelevant in today’s context and ineffective in solving the migration problem it was meant to address.
The mechanism for identifying migrants under Section 6A is also flawed. Suspected illegal migrants are supposed to be referred to Foreigners’ Tribunals, which decide their citizenship status.
However, there is no deadline for these cases, leading to significant delays. The process is also overwhelmed by the large number of cases, which has caused confusion and made it difficult to enforce the law properly. Additionally, people who do not qualify for citizenship sometimes falsely claim to fall under Section 6A, further slowing down the system.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the Supreme Court upheld Section 6A, the decision has been criticized for overlooking key issues. The law seems to harm Assam’s culture and linguistic identity, violating the protections guaranteed by Article 29.
It has also become outdated, and the process for handling cases under it is inefficient and confusing. Many people feel that the Court’s ruling focused more on defending the law rather than critically examining its flaws and long-term impact.
.
.
.
…join our telegram channel for regular updates of The Hindu Epaper Editorial Explanation-https://t.me/Thehindueditorialexplanation
The Hindu Epaper Editorial Explanation given by Hello Student is only a supplementary reading to the original article to make things easier for the students.
In conclusion, preparing for exams in India can be a daunting task, but with the right strategies and resources, success is within reach. Remember, consistent study habits, effective time management, and a positive mindset are key to overcoming any academic challenge. Utilize the tips and techniques shared in this post to enhance your preparation and boost your confidence. Stay focused, stay motivated, and don’t forget to take care of your well-being. With dedication and perseverance, you can achieve your academic goals and pave the way for a bright future. Good luck!
The Editorial Page of The Hindu is an essential reading for all the students aspiring for UPSC, SSC, PCS, Judiciary etc or any other competitive government exams.
This may also be useful for exams like CUET UG and CUET PG, GATE, GMAT, GRE AND CAT
To read this article in Hindi –https://bhaarat.hellostudent.co.in/