# 2024 INSC 789

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 789
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-10-17
- **Bench:** Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Surya Kant, J.B. Pardiwala, M.M. Sundresh, Manoj Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/2024-insc-789-37343
- **Pages:** 352

## Headnote

Issue arose as regards the constitutional validity of s.6A of the
Citizenship Act; does s.6A offend preambular values like fraternity;
s.6A, if ultra vires Part II of the Constitution; does s.6A create
an unreasonable classification which violates Art. 14; does s.6A
suffer from manifest arbitrariness; does s.6A violate the rights
provided to 'indigenous' communities u/Art. 29; s.6A, if ultra vires
Art. 21; does s.6A violate the political rights of Indian citizens in
Assam u/Art. 326; does the operation of s.6A cause 'external
aggression' and 'internal disturbance', culminating in the invocation
of Art. 355; does the Citizenship Act conflict with provisions of the
Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam Act), 1950, if so, how can the
two legislations be harmoniously interpreted; and does s.6A violate
international laws.
Headnotes†
Constitutional validity of s.6A of the Citizenship Act
Citizenship Act, 1955 - s.6A - Special provisions as to
citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord -
s.6A confering citizenship on a specific class of migrants
from Bangladesh to Assam - Provision conferred deemed
citizenship to immigrants who entered prior to 01.01.1966; and
process of registration for immigrants who entered between
the period of 01.01.1966 and 25.03.1971 - However, immigrants
who entered the State of Assam on or after 25.03.1971 not
entitled to the protection conferred vide s.6A and consequently,
declared to be illegal immigrants - Constitutional validity:
Held: (per Surya Kant, J.) (for himself and for M.M. Sundresh
and Manoj Misra, JJ.) s.6A is constitutionally valid - s.6A falls
within the bounds of the Constitution and is a valid piece of
*Author
962
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
legislation - It does not contravene the foundational principles
of fraternity, nor does it infringe upon Arts. 6, 7, 9, 14, 21, 29,
326, or 355 - s.6A does not clash with the IEAA or established
principles of international law - While the statutory scheme of s.6A is
constitutionally valid, there is inadequate enforcement of the same,
leading to the possibility of widespread injustice - Intention of s.6A,
to restrict illegal immigration post-1971 has also not been given
proper effect - s.6A has become redundant qua those immigrants
who have entered the State of Assam on or after 25.03.1971 - In
view thereof, directions issued in Sarbananda Sonowal's case
to be given effect to for deporting the illegal immigrants falling in
the said category - Provisions of the Immigrants (Expulsion from
Assam) Act, 1950 to be read into s.6A and be effectively employed
for identification of illegal immigrants - Statutory machinery and
tribunals tasked with the identification and detection of illegal
immigrants or foreigners in Assam are inadequate to the legislative
object of s.6A read with Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act,
1950, Foreigners Act, 1946, Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964,
Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and Passport Act, 1967,
thus, necessitates constant monitoring by this Court - Bench to
be constituted to monitor the implementation of the directions
issued. [Paras 387, 391, 392] - Held: (per Dr Dhananjaya Y
Chandrachud, CJI.) (Concurring) s.6A not violative of Arts. 6
and 7 of the Constitution - s.6A does not violate Art. 29(1) of
the Constitution - s.6A(3) cannot be held unconstitutional on the
ground of temporal unreasonableness and s.6A(2) cannot be held
unconstitutional for not prescribing a procedure for registration.
[Para 125] - Held: (per Pardiwala, J.) (Dissenting): By applying
the doctrine of temporal reasonableness, s.6A declared to be invalid
with prospective effect - Immigrants migrated before 01.01.1966
and were granted deemed citizenship, and immigrants migrated
between 01.01.1966 and 24.03.1971 and were granted citizenship
to remain unaffected - Immigrants migrated between 01.01.1966
and 24.03.1971, and were detected as foreigners, and registered
with authorities to be treated as Indian citizens after the

## Text

_Characters 0–39,152 of 823,194. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39152 for what follows._

[2024] 10 S.C.R. 961 : 2024 INSC 789
In Re : Section 6A of The Citizenship Act 1955
(Writ Petition (C) No. 274 of 2009)
17 October 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI, Surya Kant,*
J.B. Pardiwala,* M.M. Sundresh, and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the constitutional validity of s.6A of the
Citizenship Act; does s.6A offend preambular values like fraternity;
s.6A, if ultra vires Part II of the Constitution; does s.6A create
an unreasonable classification which violates Art. 14; does s.6A
suffer from manifest arbitrariness; does s.6A violate the rights
provided to 'indigenous' communities u/Art. 29; s.6A, if ultra vires
Art. 21; does s.6A violate the political rights of Indian citizens in
Assam u/Art. 326; does the operation of s.6A cause 'external
aggression' and 'internal disturbance', culminating in the invocation
of Art. 355; does the Citizenship Act conflict with provisions of the
Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam Act), 1950, if so, how can the
two legislations be harmoniously interpreted; and does s.6A violate
international laws.
Headnotes†
Constitutional validity of s.6A of the Citizenship Act
Citizenship Act, 1955 - s.6A - Special provisions as to
citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord -
s.6A confering citizenship on a specific class of migrants
from Bangladesh to Assam - Provision conferred deemed
citizenship to immigrants who entered prior to 01.01.1966; and
process of registration for immigrants who entered between
the period of 01.01.1966 and 25.03.1971 - However, immigrants
who entered the State of Assam on or after 25.03.1971 not
entitled to the protection conferred vide s.6A and consequently,
declared to be illegal immigrants - Constitutional validity:
Held: (per Surya Kant, J.) (for himself and for M.M. Sundresh
and Manoj Misra, JJ.) s.6A is constitutionally valid - s.6A falls
within the bounds of the Constitution and is a valid piece of
*Author
962
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
legislation - It does not contravene the foundational principles
of fraternity, nor does it infringe upon Arts. 6, 7, 9, 14, 21, 29,
326, or 355 - s.6A does not clash with the IEAA or established
principles of international law - While the statutory scheme of s.6A is
constitutionally valid, there is inadequate enforcement of the same,
leading to the possibility of widespread injustice - Intention of s.6A,
to restrict illegal immigration post-1971 has also not been given
proper effect - s.6A has become redundant qua those immigrants
who have entered the State of Assam on or after 25.03.1971 - In
view thereof, directions issued in Sarbananda Sonowal's case
to be given effect to for deporting the illegal immigrants falling in
the said category - Provisions of the Immigrants (Expulsion from
Assam) Act, 1950 to be read into s.6A and be effectively employed
for identification of illegal immigrants - Statutory machinery and
tribunals tasked with the identification and detection of illegal
immigrants or foreigners in Assam are inadequate to the legislative
object of s.6A read with Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act,
1950, Foreigners Act, 1946, Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964,
Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and Passport Act, 1967,
thus, necessitates constant monitoring by this Court - Bench to
be constituted to monitor the implementation of the directions
issued. [Paras 387, 391, 392] - Held: (per Dr Dhananjaya Y
Chandrachud, CJI.) (Concurring) s.6A not violative of Arts. 6
and 7 of the Constitution - s.6A does not violate Art. 29(1) of
the Constitution - s.6A(3) cannot be held unconstitutional on the
ground of temporal unreasonableness and s.6A(2) cannot be held
unconstitutional for not prescribing a procedure for registration.
[Para 125] - Held: (per Pardiwala, J.) (Dissenting): By applying
the doctrine of temporal reasonableness, s.6A declared to be invalid
with prospective effect - Immigrants migrated before 01.01.1966
and were granted deemed citizenship, and immigrants migrated
between 01.01.1966 and 24.03.1971 and were granted citizenship
to remain unaffected - Immigrants migrated between 01.01.1966
and 24.03.1971, and were detected as foreigners, and registered
with authorities to be treated as Indian citizens after the expiry of
10 years after they were detected - Immigrants migrated between
01.01.1966 and 24.03.1971, who were detected as foreigners but
did not register on time to lose eligibility for citizenship benefits -
Immigrants whose applications and appeals pending to be governed
by s.6A(3) - After the said judgment, no illegal immigrants in Assam
to benefit from s.6A - Constitution of India - Arts. 6, 7, 9, 14, 21,
29, 326, or 355. [Paras 217, 218]
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
963
In Re : Section 6A of The Citizenship Act 1955
Ethos of s.6A, aligned with fraternity
Constitution of India - Fraternity - Preambular notion of
fraternity - Meaning of 'fraternity' - Ethos of s.6A, if aligned
with fraternity - Preambular value of fraternity, if applicable
to the immigrants entering into the State of Assam under the
aegis of s.6A:
Held: (per Surya Kant, J.) (for himself and for M.M. Sundresh
and Manoj Misra, JJ.) Ethos underlying s.6A, align with the concept
of fraternity - In the Indian constitutional context, fraternity assumes
a dynamic and inclusive role, aligning with the broader goals of
social justice, equality, and upliftment - Very scope of fraternity
beyond just being an ideal in the Preamble was thus expanded
to be a principle that would create checks and balances on the
system of governance and state actions - Essence of fraternity,
is fundamentally geared towards fostering interconnectedness
among Indians and was envisaged to be a principle for uplifting
marginalised sections of society - Petitioners approach to interpret
fraternity in a highly restrictive manner, which allows them to choose
their neighbours, cannot be accepted since it runs contrary to the
very idea and ethos of fraternity envisaged by the Constituent
Assembly and interpreted by this Court - Fraternity requires people
of different backgrounds and social circumstances to 'live and let
live' - Nomenclature of fraternity itself is self-explanatory to the
extent that it exhibits the notion of inclusiveness and togetherness,
as opposed to restricted applicability - Thus, it becomes imperative
to refrain from employing this concept in a negative manner
that selectively applies it to a particular segment while labelling
another faction as 'illegal immigrants', solely based on the alleged
unconstitutionality of s.6A. [Paras 106, 114, 115, 117, 118]
Part II and s.6A
Citizenship Act, 1955 - s.6A - Special provisions as to
citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord -
Constitution of India - Part II - Arts. 6, 6A, 7 and 11 - s.6A, if
ultra vires the Part II - s.6A, if violative of Arts 6, 7 and 11 -
Parliament, if had the power to enact s.6A - s.6A, if contradicts
s. 5 of the Citizenship Act, which requires every citizen to
take an oath of allegiance - s.6A enabling dual citizenship, if
unconstitutional for violating Art. 9 - Parliament, if had the
competence to specify different conditions u/Art. 11.
964
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Held: (per Surya Kant, J.) (for himself and for M.M. Sundresh
and Manoj Misra, JJ.) s.6A aligns with the fundamental purpose
of Arts. 6 and 7, which was to extend citizenship rights to those
affected by the country's partition and is not contrary to them - Art.
6 does not prohibit the granting of citizenship after the cut-off date
of 19.07.1948 - It only specifies the fulfilment of certain conditions,
which, are also present in s.6A(3) - While s.6A(2) grants deemed
citizenship without these conditions, the competence of Parliament
to prescribe different conditions is well embedded in Art. 11 - Art.7
prohibits citizenship to people who remigrated to India, this is
only a sub-class of people who have been granted citizenship by
s.6A - Since s.6A grants citizenship even to people who migrated
for the first time, the class of re-migrants is severable from this
provision - Art. 11 confers overriding powers upon the Parliament
to make laws even when they are against other provisions of
Part II and that it grants the Parliament the power to make 'any'
provision regarding citizenship and that this authority is not restricted
by the provisions of Part II - Concept of dual citizenship means
one has citizenship of two countries simultaneously - In India,
such citizenship is restricted by Art. 9, and s. 9 of the Citizenship
Act, and operate in different time spheres and in different fields -
Even if it is assumed that s.6A grants dual citizenship, it does not
run counter to Art. 9 which restricts a person possessing foreign
citizenship from acquiring citizenship u/Arts. 5, 6, and 8 - However,
s.6A does not grant citizenship under these provisions and is rather
a separate method enacted by Parliament by virtue of its power
u/Art.11 - Conflict between Art. 9 and s.6A, thus, does not arise at
all - Further, s.6A also does not conflict with s. 9 because s.6A does
not override the scheme of s. 9 and must be read complementarily
thereto - However, s.6A, presumes the renunciation of previous
citizenship - Furthermore, explicit lack of an oath of allegiance
before the conferral of citizenship by s.6A does not absolve the
immigrants covered under this provision from following the laws of
the country, just as any other citizen of India - s.6A cannot be run
down on the premise that it does not mandate an oath of allegiance.
[Paras 132, 134, 135, 137, 141, 142, 144-146, 148, 149, 158, 159] -
Held: (per Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI.) (Concurring)
s.6A not violative of Arts. 6 and 7, which prescribe cut-off date for
conferring citizenship for migrants from East and West Pakistan at
the commencement of the Constitution-26.01.1950 - s.6A confers
citizenship from 01.01.1966 for those who migrated before that
date - Those who migrated between 01.01.1966 and 24.03.1971,
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
965
In Re : Section 6A of The Citizenship Act 1955
are conferred citizenship upon the completion of ten years from
the date of detection as a foreigner - s.6A confers citizenship from
a later date to those who are not covered by Arts. 6 and 7, thus,
does not have the effect of amending Arts. 6 and 7 - Art. 11 is
not a non-obstante clause - Legislative competence of Parliament
to enact laws related to citizenship is traceable to Entry 17 List I
and not Art. 11 - Provisions in Part II do not impact or limit the
legislative competence of Parliament. [Paras 38, 42, 125] - Held:
(per Pardiwala, J.) (Dissenting): s.6A is not similar in form and
identical in spirit with Arts. 6 and 7 - Perusal of s.6A vis-à-vis Arts
6 and 7 respectively would reveal that despite a few similarities
between the two, the crucial difference lies in the fact that in Art.
6, the onus of registration for a person seeking citizenship lies on
that person and not on the State - All those persons who migrated
to India from Pakistan after 19.07.1948, had to make an application
before the commencement of the Constitution - Permit system
which was introduced as per Art. 7 was also brought to an end in
1952 - Both these conditions-onus of registration as well as the
specification of a cut-off date till which such applications could
have been made are absent from the very scheme of s.6A - This
glaring absence renders the scheme of s.6A arbitrary and as a
result unconstitutional. [Para 212]
s.6A vis-à-vis Art. 14
Citizenship Act, 1955 - s.6A - Special provisions as to
citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord -
Constitution of India - Art.14 - s.6A vis-à-vis Art. 14 - s.6A,
if creates an unreasonable classification which violates
Art.14 - Plea that s.6A falls foul of Art.14 as it treats equals
unequally; and that the selective application of s.6A solely to
the State of Assam exhibits hostility against it in comparison
to other states:
Held: (per Surya Kant, J.) (for himself and for M.M. Sundresh
and Manoj Misra, JJ.) Since s.6A was predicated on the terms
of the Assam Accord, it extended citizenship solely to immigrants
in Assam because the Union of India had exclusively engaged in
this accord with Assam - This serves as the basis of intelligible
differentia vis-à-vis other States - s.6A duly considered the
pertinent factors, notably that the Assam Accord pertained solely
to the State of Assam - Since a piquant situation such as that in
Assam did not exist in any of the other States, s.6A's objective
966
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
did not extend to allowing such citizenship in these other States,
thus, classification between the State of Assam and other States
had a direct nexus with the object of the statute and classification
was not ex-facie arbitrary - Striking down s.6A on the grounds
of non-inclusion only of West Bengal would amount to allowing
an under-inclusivity challenge in disguise, which, is not generally
permitted - Thus, classification u/s.6A, not violative of Art.14
simply because it is applicable to the State of Assam alone -
Thus, s.6A not ultra vires Art. 14. [Paras 189, 198, 203-205] -
Held: (per Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI.) (Concurring)
Undocumented migrants could be registered as citizens u/s.5(1)(a)
of the Citizenship Act before it was amended by the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act 2003 to exclude 'illegal immigrants' - Thus, the
claim of the petitioner that s.6A is unconstitutional because instead
of preventing migration to Assam, it incentivizes migrants in other
states to come to Assam to secure citizenship through s.6A, is
erroneous - s.6A confers citizenship to migrants from Bangladesh
to Assam before 25 March 1971 - s.6A satisfies the two-pronged
reasonable classification test - Legislative objective of s.6A was to
balance the humanitarian needs of migrants of Indian Origin and
the impact of the migration on the economic and cultural needs
of Indian States - Two yardsticks employed in s.6A-migration
to Assam and cut-off date of 24 March 1971 are reasonable -
Though other states share a longer border with Bangladesh, the
impact of migration in Assam in terms of numbers and resources
is greater - Cut-off date of 25 March 1971 is reasonable because
the Pakistani Army launched Operation Search light to curb the
Bangladeshi nationalist movement in East Pakistan on 26 March
1971 - Migrants before the operation were considered migrants
of Indian partition - Both the yardsticks have a rational nexus
with the object of s.6A - Also s.6A is neither under-inclusive nor
over-inclusive. [Paras 75, 125]
Constitution of India - Art. 14 - Right to equality -
Reasonableness of classification - Yardsticks to check the
reasonableness of classification - Qualifications regarding
the yardsticks:
Held: (per Surya Kant, J.) (for himself and for M.M. Sundresh
and Manoj Misra, JJ.) Art. 14 requires the legislature to treat
equals equally, but it also allows for differential treatment if the
characteristics of the classes differ - Art. 14 permits the legislature
to classify individuals into different groups and apply distinct
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
967
In Re : Section 6A of The Citizenship Act 1955
norms accordingly, and such classification must be reasonable -
Yardsticks to check the reasonableness of classification is that
the classification should not be based on arbitrary criteria and
must instead be based on a logic which distinguishes individuals
with similar characteristics - Thus, a classification is reasonable
if it differentiates between similar and dissimilar elements, if such
distinction is intelligible, and if the similarities and dissimilarities have
nexus with the purpose of the statute - Qualifications regarding
the yardsticks is that while establishing a nexus with the object
of the statute is necessary, it is not essential to demonstrate
that the classification was the optimal method to achieve the
object in question, and when gauging the reasonableness of
classification, the Court must adopt a pragmatic view and refrain
from deeming a classification unconstitutional solely because it is
marginally under-inclusive. [Paras 168-170, 177, 179, 180] - Held:
(per Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI.) (Concurring)
Classification is constitutionally permissible, when two prong test
that there must be an intelligible differentia between those forming a
group and those left out; and the differentia must have a reasonable
nexus with the object sought to be achieved, is satisfied - Court
now, within the traditional two prong test has advocated for a more
substantial inquiry that subsumes the following prongs which is
the objective and the means - Determination of the yardstick for
classification will help in the assessment of whether a provision is
under-inclusive or over-inclusive - Yardstick must have a nexus
with the object and must be in consonance with constitutional
principles. [Paras 59, 68(c)]
Citizenship Act, 1955 - s.6A - Over-inclusiveness and
under-inclusiveness - Determination - s.6A, under-inclusive
or over-inclusive :
Held: (per Surya Kant, J.) (for himself and for M.M. Sundresh
and Manoj Misra, JJ.) Classification u/s.6A, not violative of
Art. 14 simply because it is applicable to the State of Assam
alone - In adjudicating the validity of a statute, the concept of
under-inclusiveness arises when classification within the law fails
to encompass all individuals similarly situated with respect to the
law's intended purpose - Even if there are States that could share
similar characteristics with Assam, comparison should be between
two broad classes: Assam and the rest of India, rather than each
individual constituent of these two classes - Since other States,
in general, were not facing similar issues, unique political situation
968
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
created in Assam by the influx of immigrants, the differentiation
in classes was reasonable - Hence, even if some States like
West Bengal were placed similarly to Assam, that in and of itself
would not lead to holding s.6A unconstitutional - Striking down
s.6A on the grounds of non-inclusion only of West Bengal would
amount to allowing an under-inclusivity challenge in disguise,
which, is not generally permitted. [Paras 180, 203, 204] - Held:
(per Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI.) (Concurring) s.6A
is neither under-inclusive nor over-inclusive - Over-inclusiveness
and under-inclusiveness must be determined based on whether
there are similarly situated persons/situations who or which have
not been included or have been included based on the yardstick
identified - Determination cannot be made with reference to the
objective without reference to the yardstick - Doing so would limit
the ability of the Legislature to identify the degrees of harm -
Yardstick can be challenged where another yardstick affects or
is related to the objective in a comparable manner - 6A would
be under-inclusive only when all those who are similarly situated
with respect to the object and on the application of the rational
yardstick are not included - Provision would be over-inclusive only
when those who are not similarly situated with respect to these two
parameters are included. [Paras 75, 76] - Held: (per Pardiwala,
J.) (Concurring) s.6A cannot be said to be violative of Art. 14 for
being under-inclusive - Distinction drawn between the State of
Assam and other states for the grant of citizenship to immigrants
was on the basis of special circumstances prevailing in Assam at
the time of enactment of s.6A - s.6A was a statutory codification of a
political settlement reached between the Government and the people
of Assam and thus, not violative of the equality clause enshrined
u/Art.14 at the time of its enactment in 1985. [Paras 15, 207]
Constitution of India - Art. 14 - Writ petition challenging
constitutionality of s.6A - Maintainability u/Art. 14:
Held: (per Surya Kant, J.) (for himself and for M.M. Sundresh
and Manoj Misra, JJ.) Art. 14 indicates that it confers individuals
with equality before the law and is not restricted to mere equality
for the benefits provided under law - Petitioner's case that s.6A
has singled out the State of Assam alone vis-à-vis other Indian
States situated alongside the Bangladesh border and has curtailed
the rights of only its original inhabitants - Petitioners' assertion
founded upon Art. 14 cannot be invalidated at a preliminary stage
merely because they are seeking equality in regard to a restriction
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
969
In Re : Section 6A of The Citizenship Act 1955
as opposed to a benefit - Thus, the objection regarding the
maintainability of the petitioners' claim u/Art. 14 rejected. [Paras
163, 164, 166]
s.6A, if manifestly arbitrary
Citizenship Act, 1955 - s.6A - Special provisions as to
citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord -
Constitution of India - Art. 14 - Manifest Arbitrariness - s.6A,
if manifestly arbitrary - Plea that there is no rationale for
the cut-off dates-01.01.1966 and 25.03.1971, thus, manifestly
arbitrary; that the process envisaged u/s.6A and the Citizenship
Rules, 2009 for the migrants unreasonable and suffers from
the vice of 'manifest arbitrariness'; that s.6A offends Part II
of the Constitution; and that the term 'ordinarily resident' in
s.6A undefined and vague:
Held: (per Surya Kant, J.) (for himself and for M.M. Sundresh
and Manoj Misra, JJ.) s.6A does not suffer from manifest
arbitrariness because there is application of mind behind the
incorporation of the cut-off dates; the process u/s.6A is not
arbitrary; s.6A does not violate Part II of the Constitution; and the
term 'ordinary residence' is not vague enough to be void - Cutoff dates in s.6A not incorporated in a vacuous manner but were
result of considerable deliberation and discussion, and also backed
by well-considered rationale which does not militates against any
constitutional values or the concept of constitutional morality -
Instead, s.6A acknowledged the political and social realities of
that period along with the impracticability of reversing the changes
that had occurred - There are legibly delineated conditions and
reasonable process envisaged u/s.6A and the Citizenship Rules,
2009 for migrants who came before 01.01.1966, as well as those
who came on or after 01.01.1966 and before 25.03.1971 - s.6A
conferred citizenship only upon certain immigrants who met certain
specified conditions up to a particular cut-off date - Its aim was
not only to legitimize the stay of a particular class of immigrants
but also to facilitate the detection and deportation of others.
[Paras 232, 234, 238, 243, 245, 273] - Held: (per Pardiwala, J.)
(Dissenting) s.6A suffers from the vice of manifest arbitrariness
on account of the "systematic failure of the legislative vision -
s.6A has acquired unconstitutionality subsequent to its enactment
in 1985 by efflux of time and has thus become violative of Art. 14
for being temporally unreasonable - Efflux of time has brought
970
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
to light the element of manifest arbitrariness in the scheme of
s.6A(3) which fails to provide a temporal limit to its applicability.
[Paras 15, 208, 210]
Constitution of India - Art. 14 - Manifest Arbitrariness - Relation
between Art. 14 and arbitrariness - Constituents of manifest
arbitrariness - Facets of the test of manifest arbitrariness -
Extent of review under manifest arbitrariness - Elucidated.
(per Surya Kant, J.) (for himself and for M.M. Sundresh and
Manoj Misra, JJ.) [Paras 206-226] - (per Dr Dhananjaya Y
Chandrachud, CJI.) (Concurring) [Para 59] - (per Pardiwala,
J.) (Dissenting) [Paras 171, 177, 179, 180]
Vagueness in law
Citizenship Act 1955 - s.6A - Term 'ordinarily resident' in
s.6A, if vague - s.6A, if void for being vague :
Held: (per Surya Kant, J.) (for himself and for M.M. Sundresh
and Manoj Misra, JJ.) Term 'ordinarily residence' is not vague
enough to be void. [Paras 267-273]
Words and phrases - Vagueness in law - Meaning and
explanation - Test for void-for-vagueness - Extent of review
for the test of 'void for vagueness' -
Held: (per Surya Kant, J.) (for himself and for M.M. Sundresh
and Manoj Misra, JJ.) Vagueness is an inherent feature of
language - Same intention can be expressed with a variety
of words and expressions, and any given choice of words can
relate to multiple different intentions - This problem is particularly
exacerbated with vague terms - Most standards in law have some
degree of open texture, and inevitably harbor some vagueness
or multiple meanings - Vagueness in law, however, exists on a
spectrum, and different scenarios necessitate different degrees
of tolerance towards vagueness - Excessive vagueness in law
can make the statute overbroad and might make the exercise
of discretion a capricious exercise - At the same time, it might
sometimes be desirable in the interest of justice to retain some
open texture in statutes, to cover future eventualities that the
legislature might not have anticipated but intended to address
based on the overarching purpose of the law - In that sense, the
sliding scale of vagueness in law determines whether the law is
just and inclusive, or unjust and capricious - Vagueness needs
to be viewed from the perspective of the authorities applying the
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
971
In Re : Section 6A of The Citizenship Act 1955
impugned law; and the persons being regulated by the impugned
law - Statute or its provision can be struck down for vagueness -
Ordinarily, courts should endeavour to draw a demarcating line and
infer some reasonable meaning from an impugned provision, rather
than hastening to intervene and striking down the entire provision
on the grounds of vagueness. [Paras 249, 251, 255, 263, 264]
Citizenship Act, 1955 - s.6A - Phrase 'ordinary resident in
Assam' under - Meaning - Discussed. (per Surya Kant, J.)
(for himself and for M.M. Sundresh and Manoj Misra, JJ.)
[Paras 268-273]
s.6A vis-à-vis Art. 29
Citizenship Act, 1955 - s.6A - Special provisions as to
citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord -
Constitution of India - Art. 29 - s.6A vis-à-vis Art. 29 - s.6A,
if violative of the rights provided to 'indigenous' communities
u/Art. 29:
Held: (per Surya Kant, J.) (for himself and for M.M. Sundresh
and Manoj Misra, JJ.) s.6A cannot be held to be violative of
Art. 29 - Petitioners' failed to show either an actionable impact
on Assamese culture, or trace the cause of it to s.6A - On
the contrary, s.6A mandates timely detection and deportation
of illegal immigrants, a large portion of whom entered Assam
post-1971 - It is the non-implementation of the statutory regime
which is the cause of the petitioners' concerns; their attack on
the constitutionality of s.6A is misplaced - Also, s.6A does not
compel pre-1971 immigrants to keep residing within the territory
of Assam once they have obtained Indian citizenship, given that
they would enjoy Art. 19(1)(e) rights like any other citizen of India.
[Paras 298, 304] - Held: (per Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,
CJI.) (Concurring) s.6A does not violate Art. 29(1) - Cultural
and linguistic interests of the citizens of Assam are protected
by constitutional and statutory provisions - Mere presence of
different ethnic groups in a State not sufficient to infringe the right
guaranteed by Art. 29(1) - Also the petitioners are unable to prove
that the ability of the Assamese people to take steps to protect their
culture, violated by the provisions of s.6A. [Paras 100-102, 125] -
Held (per Pardiwala, J.) (Dissenting) By virtue of Art. 19(1)(e), s.6A
does not compel pre-1971 immigrants to keep residing in the territory
of Assam once they have obtained citizenship thereunder, said may
be true for the immigrants belonging to the pre-1966 stream who
972
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
were conferred citizenship automatically, and thus became citizens
of India for all purposes from the date of commencement of s.6A
itself, the same does not hold true for the immigrants belonging
to the 1966-71 category - In the absence of any temporal limit,
within which all immigrants belonging to the 1966-71 category are
to be detected, deleted and registered as citizens, the immigrants
of this category are tethered to the territory of Assam, so as to
satisfy the criteria of "ordinarily resident in Assam" on the date
when they eventually happen to get detected. [Para 214]
Substance of Art. 29(1)
Constitution of India - Art. 29(1) - Protection of interest of
minorities - Substance of Art. 29(1):
Held: (per Surya Kant, J.) (for himself and for M.M. Sundresh
and Manoj Misra, JJ.) Rights conferred by Art. 29(1) require that
the State not to take any steps to erode a community's culture,
language or script; and concomitantly accords to such section of
citizens the freedom and independence to preserve and conserve
their culture, language and script, by themselves - Right u/Art.29(1)
does not necessitate the Government to enact specific provisions
for its enforcement and also does not altogether restrict the State
from enacting regulations. [Para 295]
Art. 21 and s.6A
Citizenship Act, 1955 - s.6A - Special provisions as to citizenship
of persons covered by the Assam Accord - Constitution of India
- Art. 21 - s.6A, if ultra vires Art. 21 - Plea that s.6A infringes
upon the rights of the 'indigenous' Assamese community; that
immigration led to the marginalization and disruption of their
socio-economic aspirations; relying on Art.1 of ICCPR, their
right of self-governance is being violated by s.6A; and inclusion
of unidentified migrant population burdens country's natural
resources, hindering sustainable development:
Held: (per Surya Kant, J.) (for himself and for M.M. Sundresh
and Manoj Misra, JJ.) s.6A non-violative of Art. 21 - Petitioners
not able to establish both a deleterious effect of s.6A on their
indigenous communities as well as trace the cause of such effect to
s.6A - As regards plea of self-governance, perceived right u/Art.1
of the ICCPR not enforceable through writ jurisdiction - More so,
India's explicit reservation is against its application in India, and it
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
973
In Re : Section 6A of The Citizenship Act 1955
generally is applicable only to people under foreign domination -
Assertion that immigration has impacted the self-governance of the
original inhabitants of Assam, cannot be accepted - Furthermore,
petitioners have not demonstrated how s.6A affects their right to
govern themselves democratically - Mere fact that sub-class of
immigrants whose status has been legitimised by s.6A also has
access to these resources does not automatically imply a disruption
of ecological balance or violation of the original inhabitants' rights
to resource usage - This conflates the idea of "unfair usage" with
"more usage"- premise that cannot be accepted - Nation can
accommodate immigrants and refugees, while simultaneously
prioritizing sustainable development and equitable allocation of
resources. [Paras 308-321]
Aim of Art. 326
Constitution of India - Art. 326 - Aim and objective of Art. 326:
Held: (per Surya Kant, J.) (for himself and for M.M. Sundresh and
Manoj Misra, JJ.) Objective of Art. 326 is to enfranchise people as
opposed to disenfranchising them - Evident purpose of its inclusion
was to bestow upon every individual citizen the right to exercise
their vote and choose their elected representatives. [Para 335]
Right of exclusion and Art. 326
Constitution of India - Art. 326 - Right of exclusion - Right
u/Art. 326, if can be invoked to exclude certain individuals -
s.6A, if violates the political rights of Indian citizens in Assam
u/Art.326:
Held: (per Surya Kant, J.) (for himself and for M.M. Sundresh
and Manoj Misra, JJ.) Art. 326 bestows upon individuals the
right to vote and the right to be included in electoral rolls unless
disqualified by the legislature or other constitutional provisions - It
cannot be said that the influx of immigrants in the State of Assam
has affected the right of the Assamese people to vote - Once
deemed citizens by operation of s.6A, the erstwhile immigrants
would enjoy equal rights as any other Indian citizen, including
the right to vote, irrespective of the mode or time of acquisition
of citizenship - Such constitutional rights cannot be summarily
revoked or infringed upon - There has been no violation of the
right of the petitioners u/Art. 326 as it merely grants them the right
to vote and be included in the electoral rolls, which continues to
974
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
subsist to this day devoid of any interruption - Citizenship Act,
1955 - s.6A. [Paras 341-344]
Elections - Adult suffrage - Background and evolution of -
Stated. [Paras 325-330]
s.6A vis-à-vis Art. 355
Citizenship Act, 1955 - s.6A - Special provisions as to
citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord -
Constitution of India - Art. 355 - s.6A vis-a-vis Art. 355 -
Operation of s.6A, if causes 'external aggression' and 'internal
disturbance', culminating in the invocation of Art. 355:
Held: (per Surya Kant, J.) (for himself and for M.M. Sundresh
and Manoj Misra, JJ.) s.6A not contrary to Art. 355 - s.6A is
limited in its ambit and does not by itself create unabated migration
or legitimize its continuance - In fact, s.6A adopts a practical
solution for the problem of incessant illegal immigration into
Assam by devising an implementable solution keeping in mind
India's commitments, international relations and administrative
realities - Migrants also need to satisfy certain conditions for
invoking s.6A, apart from being persons of Indian origin and
ordinary residents in India - s.6A addresses controlled and
regulated form of immigration that would fall short of 'external
aggression' - Migration legitimized by s.6A also does not constitute
internal disturbance - s.6A was a crucial step in bringing quietus
to the political upheaval in Assam and marked the culmination of
various agitations surrounding illegal immigration and the rights
of indigenous communities - Thus, s.6A does not cause 'internal
disturbance'. [Paras 364-367] - Held: (per Dr Dhananjaya Y
Chandrachud, CJI.) (Concurring) Constitutional validity of a
legislation cannot be tested for violation of Art. 355 - Art.355
was included in the Constitution as a justification for the exercise
of emergency powers by the Union over States - Art. 355 as
an independent ground for judicial review of legislative action
is beyond the scope of the provision - An interpretation that a
legislative enactment can be challenged for contravention of Art.
355 would lead to disastrous consequences - Reading the duty
in Art. 355 into a right would effectively place the emergency
powers with citizens and courts - Such a consequence would
be catastrophic for the federal structure of the Constitution and
would subjugate the constitutional status of States. [Paras 89,
90, 125]
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
975
In Re : Section 6A of The Citizenship Act 1955
Sarbananda Sonowal's case
Citizenship - Illegal immigrants - Sarbananda Sonowal v.
Union of India's case on detection and deportation of illegal
immigrants - Explanation:
Held: (per Surya Kant, J.) (for himself and for M.M. Sundresh
and Manoj Misra, JJ.) Holding in Sarbananda Sonowal's case
that the term aggression in Art. 355 is of a wide import and can
include unabated migration if it poses a threat to the security of the
state, is concurred with - Thus, in such cases, the Union indeed
bears a duty to protect the State from such unabated immigration
that it amounts to external aggression or internal disturbance; and
those statutes which violate this duty can be held unconstitutional.
[Paras 356-361]
Constitution of India - Art. 355 - Intention behind the inclusion
of Art. 355 - Explained. [Paras 351-355] (per Surya Kant, J.)
(for himself and for M.M. Sundresh and Manoj Misra, JJ.)
Citizenship Act vis-à-vis the IEAA
Citizenship Act, 1955 - s.6A - Special provisions as to
citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord -
Citizenship Act vis-à-vis the Immigrants (Expulsion from
Assam Act), 1950-IEAA - IEAA, if applicable to the immigrants
in Assam, to the exclusion of the Foreigners Act, 1946 - IEAA,
if in conflict with the intent and aim of s.6A - Harmonious
interpretation of two legislations:
Held: (per Surya Kant, J.) (for himself and for M.M. Sundresh
and Manoj Misra, JJ.) s.6A is not in conflict with a differently
situated statute-IEAA - Instead, IEAA and s.6A can be read
harmoniously along with other statutes - IEAA and Foreigners Act,
1946, seek to regulate the residence and departure of foreigners
in India - To that extent, no conflict between the Statutes and
both of them supplement and complement each other within the
framework of s.6A - s.6A need not be construed in a restrictive
manner to mean that a person shall be detected and deported
only under the Foreigners Act, 1946 - If there is any other piece
of legislation such as the IEAA, under which the status of an
immigrant can be determined, no reason as to why such statutory
detection shall also not be given effect to, for the purposes of
deportation - Provisions of IEAA shall also be read into s.6A and
be applied along with the Foreigners Act, 1946 for the purpose of
976
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
detection and deportation of foreigners - Immigrants (Expulsion
from Assam Act), 1950 - Foreigners Act, 1946. [Paras 376-382]
Interface with International Law
Citizenship Act, 1955 - s.6A - Special provisions as to
citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord - s.6A,
if violative of international laws - Plea that since s.6A impacts
the culture of original inhabitants, thus, violates Art. 27 of
the ICCPR:
Held: (per Surya Kant, J.) (for himself and for M.M. Sundresh
and Manoj Misra, JJ.) Art. 27 of the ICCPR restricts intervention
in one's culture - s.6A per se does not intervene in culture of
Assamese people - Furthermore International law cannot trump
domestic law - Thus, s.6A cannot be assailed on the ground of the
perceived violation of Art. 27 of the ICCPR as well - Constitution
of India - Art. 29 - International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. [Para 386]
Temporal Unreasonableness
Citizenship Act, 1955 - s.6A(3) - Temporal Unreasonableness -
Absence of temporal limit on the applicability of s.6A(3),
if renders the said provision manifestly arbitrary and thus
violative of Art. 14 - Efflux of time, if has rendered s.6A
temporally unreasonable and thus liable to be struck down
in consequence of violation of Art. 14 - Placing temporal
limitations on the period of applicability, if an objective
implicit in the scheme of s.6A - s.6A, if suffers from manifest
arbitrariness:
Held: (per Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI.) (Concurring)
Principle of temporal unreasonableness cannot be applied to a
situation where the classification is still relevant to the objective of
the provision - Process of detection and conferring citizenship in
Assam is a long-drawn out process spanning many decades - To
strike it down due to lapse of time is to ignore the context and object
of the provision.