S.6A Citizenship Act Doesn't Violate Fraternity, Fraternity Encourages Intermingling Of Different Groups : Supreme Court In Assam Accord Case

The Supreme Court has rejected the argument that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act- which allowed migrants who came to Assam from Bangladesh before March 25, 1971, to seek Indian citizenship -violated the concept of fraternity.

A 5-judge Constitution Bench upheld by 4:1 majority (Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh and Manoj Misra) the constitutional validity of the provision with Justice Pardiwala dissenting.

The petitioners, Assam-based indigenous groups, challenged Section 6A on the ground that that the idea of fraternity, as encapsulated in the Constitution of India, is to be interpreted in the context of the unity and integrity of the nation. They argued against a global/transnational construction of the term, wherein the notion of fraternity is extended beyond the citizens of India. They asserted that the constitutional mandate in the Preamble pertains to fraternity amongst citizens and that this notion of fraternity might be destroyed when a legislative enactment such as Section 6A threatens to destroy the cultural demography of that citizenry. They contended that the influx of immigrants from Bangladesh into the State of Assam has jeopardized the very ideal of fraternity in India.

However, these arguments did not find favour with the bench. The judgment authored by Justice Surya Kant (on behalf of himself, Justice Sundresh and Manoj Misra) held that fraternity cannot be narrowly interpreted in a manner that allows the petitioners to "choose their neighbours." Referring to various precedents, the judgment explained that fraternity encourages people to inter-mingle with people who are dissimilar to them.

"As articulated in the Preamble, the term 'fraternity' embodies a sense of collective brotherhood amongst all Indians. It serves as a critical element for national unity and social cohesion. Fraternity assumes paramount significance in reinforcing the ideals of equality and liberty, both of which are integral facets of the Preamble," the judgment stated. The judgment discussed in detail how Dr.Ambedkar was instrumental in adding the concept of fraternity to the Preamble.

"Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's introduction of the term 'fraternity' into the constitutional Preamble reflects a deliberate intention to use this principle as a means to promote unity and brotherhood.In light of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's persistent efforts towards eradicating caste discrimination, his subsequent advocacy for fraternity among individuals appears to mirror his commitment to inclusivity," Justice Surya Kant wrote.

Referring to Indian Medical Association v. Union of India AIR 2011 SC 2365, the judgment noted that the Court understood fraternity as encouraging the "intermixing of people and one which discourages exclusivity or endogamous social structures." Reference was also made to Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011) 7 SCC 547

"Having examined the notion of fraternity from various perspectives, it can be deduced that the essence of fraternity, therefore, is fundamentally geared towards fostering interconnectedness among Indians and was envisaged to be a principle for uplifting marginalised sections of society," Justice Kant observed.

Fraternity can't be used to disenfranchise people

The Court disapproved of the petitioners' attempt to use fraternity as an argument to delegitimise persons who have validly acquired citizenship through Section 6A.

"Consequently, it might be antithetical to the essence of fraternity to deploy this inclusive constitutional value in a way which deliberately excludes large swathes of the population, who have been duly conferred citizenship through procedure established by law, from the protection of constitutional rights. In fact, our understanding of fraternity, as also applied by this Court in Indian Medical Association v. Union of India (supra), is that it encourages, if not compels, people to fraternise and intermingle with people dissimilar to them."

Fraternity requires people of different backgrounds to "live and let live".

The judgment further stated :

"In many ways, the Petitioners want fraternity to be interpreted in a highly restrictive manner, which allows them to choose their neighbours. Since this approach runs contrary to the very idea and ethos of fraternity that was envisaged by the Constituent Assembly and as subsequently interpreted by this Court, it cannot be accepted. Our reading of the Constitution and precedents is that fraternity requires people of different backgrounds and social circumstances to 'live and let live'. The 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 Section 6A."

"In this light, when faced with the dilemma of disenfranchising millions or safeguarding a community's endogamous way of life, this Court would certainly be compelled by the principles of fraternity to prioritize the former. Thus, in our considered view, the Petitioners contentions in this regard deserve to be rejected."

Also from the judgment - Mere Presence Of Different Ethnic Groups In A State Doesn't Violate Cultural Rights Of Local Population: Supreme Court In Assam Accord Case

Other reports about the judgment can be read here.