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

While upholding the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which recognized the Assam Accord, the Supreme Court (4:1) majority rejected the argument that conferring citizenship to migrants from Bangladesh infringed the cultural and linguistic rights of Assamese guaranteed under Article 29 of the Constitution.

The Court, through the judgment of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, rejected the argument that mere presence of different ethnic groups in a State will violate the rights of the local population to conserve their culture and language under Article 29.

As per Section 6A, migrants from Bangladesh who entered Assam before 01.01.1966 are deemed to be Indian citizens. Also, Section 6A allows those who entered between 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 to seek Indian citizenship based on meeting certain eligibility criteria. However, those who entered from Bangladesh after 25.03.1971 are regarded as illegal migrants.

A 5-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant, Justice MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra decided the matter. Justice Pardiwala dissented to hold Section 6A unconstitutional with a prospective effect.

The petitioners' contention that Section 6A is violative of Article 29 was based on the following premises: (a) conferring citizenship to migrants from Bangladesh to Assam will increase Bengali population in Assam; and (b) the increase in Bengali population affects the culture of the Assamese population.

According to Article 29(1), any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud in his judgment noted that the premise of the petitioners' argument is not that the people of Assam are prevented from taking steps to conserve their culture. The argument is also not that the State is not taking effective steps to create conditions to enable groups to take steps to conserve culture. The argument of the petitioners was that the culture of Assam is infringed by the large influx of Bangladeshi immigrants who are conferred citizenship and Section 6A to the extent that it allows the influx is unconstitutional.

Rejecting this argument, CJI stated :

"I am unable to accept this argument. First, as a matter of constitutional principle, the mere presence of different ethnic groups in a State is not sufficient to infringe the right guaranteed by Article 29(1). As explained above, Article 29(1) confers the right to 'conserve' which means the right to take positive steps to protect culture and language. The petitioners ought to prove that the necessary effect of the law that promotes the presence of various ethnic groups in a State is that another ethnic group is unable to take steps to protect their culture or language. The petitioner also ought to prove that the inability to take steps to conserve culture or language is attributable to the mere presence of different groups."

CJI also noted that various constitutional and legislative provisions protect Assamese cultural heritage. The Constitution provides certain special provisions for the administration of Tribal Areas in Assam. The Constitution (Twenty-second Amendment) Act 1969 included Article 244A of the Constitution. Article 244A stipulates that notwithstanding anything in the Indian Constitution, Parliament may by law form an autonomous State within Assam comprising wholly or in part of all or any of the tribal areas. Article 371B was included in the Constitution which provides a special provision with respect to the State of Assam. The Sixth Schedule to the Constitution consists of provisions regarding the administration of tribal areas in the State of Assam, among other States.

The Legislature of the State of Assam enacted the Assam Official Language Act adopting Assamese as the language for all official purposes of the State of Assam. The Assam Official Language Act also provides that the Bengali language would be used for administrative and other official purposes upto and including the “district of Cachar until the Mohkuma Parishads and Municipal Boards of the district.” In addition to the above, the State Government also has the power to direct the use of the language in such parts of the State of Assam through notification.

"The cultural and linguistic interests of the citizens of Assam are protected by constitutional and statutory provisions. Thus, Section 6A of the Citizenship Act does not violate Article 29(1) of the Constitution for the above reasons," CJI Chandrachud wrote.

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

Other reports about the judgment can be read here.

Case Title: In Re: Section 6A Citizenship Act 1955