In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, a special provision that grants Indian citizenship to immigrants who entered Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971. The decision was passed by a five-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, with a majority verdict of 4:1.

The Chief Justice emphasised that the Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, which was introduced as part of the Assam Accord to address the specific issues arising from the large influx of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh following its independence. "The Parliament had the legislative competence to enact it," stated the Chief Justice, noting that the provision was a political solution to a unique problem faced by Assam, which had seen its culture and demographics threatened by the massive immigration.

Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices M.M. Sundresh and Manoj Misra, supported the majority opinion, concurring with the Chief Justice’s views. They affirmed the government's competence to take steps to preserve the interests of citizens and maintain law and order, specifically in response to the challenges faced by Assam. Justice Kant added that while such a provision could not be enacted for all states, the gravity of the situation in Assam necessitated special governmental intervention.

The judgment highlighted that the influx of immigrants led to agitation in Assam, especially due to concerns about the dilution of voting rights for the indigenous population. The Supreme Court upheld the cut-off date of March 25, 1971, for determining illegal immigrants, stressing that anyone entering Assam after this date from Bangladesh must be identified, detected, and deported.

In contrast, Justice J.B. Pardiwala dissented from the majority and held that Section 6A was unconstitutional. However, the court overall ruled in favour of the provision, recognising it as a balanced response to the complex issue of migration.

The court also directed the central and state governments to ensure effective implementation of guidelines from the Sarbananda Sonowal judgments, which relate to the identification and deportation of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. Furthermore, the Supreme Court asserted that it would closely monitor the process of detecting and deporting illegal immigrants moving forward.

The ruling stems from a petition filed by the Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha, a Guwahati-based civil society organisation, which, along with other petitioners, had challenged Section 6A in 2012. The petitioners argued that the provision posed a threat to Assam’s cultural identity.

In his remarks, Chief Justice Chandrachud reiterated that Section 6A must be viewed in the context of the post-Bangladesh War period, explaining that the Assam Accord was a political solution to the crisis of illegal immigration, while the provision served as the legislative solution. He underscored the importance of balancing humanitarian concerns with protecting the interests of the local population.

The court’s decision represents a significant step in addressing one of the core issues raised by the Assam Accord and reinforces the role of both Parliament and the judiciary in shaping immigration policy in India.