Citizenship Act 1955 – Section 6A – Constitutional validity upheld -Section 6A falls within the bounds of the Constitution and does not contravene the foundational principles of fraternity, nor does it infringe upon Articles 6 and 7, Article 9, Article 14, Article 21, Article 29, Article 326, or Article 355 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, Section 6A does not clash with the IEAA or established principles of international law – Section 6A does not suffer from manifest arbitrariness because: (a) there is application of mind behind the incorporation of the cut-off dates; (b) the process under Section 6A is not arbitrary; (c) Section 6A does not violate Part II; and (d) the term ‘ordinary residence’ is not vague enough to be void.-But there is inadequate enforcement of the same—leading to the possibility of widespread injustice. Further, the intention of Section 6A, i.e., to restrict illegal immigration post- 1971 has also not been given proper effect. Directions issued: (a) Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 falls within the bounds of the Constitution and is a valid piece of legislation; (b) As a necessary corollary thereto, (i) immigrants who entered the State of Assam prior to 1966 are deemed citizens; (ii) immigrants who entered between the cut off dates of 01.01.1966 and 25.03.1971 can seek citizenship subject to the eligibility conditions prescribed in Section 6A (3); and (iii) immigrants who entered the State of Assam on or after 25.03.1971 are not entitled to the protection conferred vide Section 6A and consequently, they are declared to be illegal immigrants. Accordingly, Section 6A has become redundant qua those immigrants who have entered the State of Assam on or after 25.03.1971; (c) The directions issued in Sarbananda Sonowal (supra) are required to be given effect to for the purpose of deporting the illegal immigrants falling in the category of direction (b) (iii) above; (d) The provisions of the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 shall also be read into Section 6A and shall be effectively employed for the purpose of identification of illegal immigrants; (e) The statutory machinery and Tribunals tasked with the identification and detection of illegal immigrants or foreigners in Assam are inadequate and not proportionate to the requirement of giving time-bound effect to the legislative object of Section 6A read with the Immigrants (Expulsion from 185 Assam) Act, 1950, the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and the Passport Act, 1967; and (f) The implementation of immigration and citizenship legislations cannot be left to the mere wish and discretion of the authorities, necessitating constant monitoring by this Court.
Constitution of India – Article 14 –Manifest arbitrariness- Manifest arbitrariness must be something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle. Also, when something is done which is excessive and disproportionate, such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary- While the test of manifest arbitrariness requires the presence of logicality, such reasoning does not have to be stated explicitly and can be discernable from the facts and circumstances.163 However, it should be noted that the converse may not hold. In other words, even if the reason or rationale behind the impugned provision is expressly stated, it does not automatically guarantee non-arbitrariness. Such reason also needs to align with constitutional morality and public interest, and must bear a nexus with the object of the statute. The aspect of irrationality, as found in the test for ‘manifest arbitrariness’, thus, does not solely imply the absence of reason but also requires alignment with constitutional morality. Hence, the legitimacy of the reason or logic behind the impugned legislation should be viewed from the lens of constitutional ideals- Irrationality does not merely denote the absence of reason but also requires that such reasoning be in harmony with constitutionalism- bright-line test. In law, the bright-line test is a clearly defined norm that does not leave a scope of interpretation – while testing the arbitrariness of bright-line tests, the Courts must be mindful of the inherent limitations in such norms and therefore a microscopic review should be avoided. Instead, as discussed above, the effort should be to determine if the bright-line norm crosses the prescribed limit of ‘manifest arbitrariness’ and is irrational and capricious enough to be struck down. If the norm is backed by a policy reason, the Court must refrain from excessively questioning the specific standard and should exercise judicial review cautiously. (Para 214-226)
Constitution of India – Fraternity – 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 Preambl- In the Indian context, the meaning of fraternity has thus entirely diverged from the French sense of the term and is intricately woven into the fabric of fostering social solidarity, uplifting marginalised groups, and achieving a more equitable society- Unlike some Western perspectives, where fraternity may be overshadowed by an emphasis on individual rights, in India, fraternity is distinctly perceived as a vital instrument for realising equality and harmonising the diverse segments of society. It serves as a conduit for transcending societal disparities and working towards collective well-being. Therefore, in the Indian constitutional context, fraternity assumes a dynamic and inclusive role, aligning with the broader goals of social justice, equality, and upliftment. (Para 96-106) – t 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 (Para 115)
Constitution of India – Article 29(1). This article aims to protect and guarantee the right conferred upon every citizen of India to conserve their language, script or culture. When read in conjunction with Article 30, the overarching objective of Article 29 is to allow minority communities to establish educational institutions to preserve and fortify their cultural, linguistic, or scriptural heritage.-Article 29(1) effectively has two key aspects that need to be determined: first, whether there is a ‘section of citizens’ seeking to conserve their language, script or culture and second, that such language, script or culture in question is ‘distinct’. Article 29(1) begins with the term ‘any section of citizens’. Though the term ‘minority’ is used in the marginal heading, the scope of Article 29(1) is not restricted to minorities as understood in the technical sense. It instead extends to any section of citizens residing in the territory of India – , Article 29(1), while conferring the right to conserve, does not restrict itself only to the notion of a minority as understood in the technical sense but includes any group that may seek to conserve a distinct language, script or culture. Article 29 does not advocate for absolute governmental abstention in matters involving culture, language or script. In fact, to some extent, government intervention is unavoidable as regulation is essential for the maintenance of public order and for upholding constitutionalism. State actions and regulations with an insignificant or merely incidental effect on a community’s cultural rights might also not be caught in the crosshairs of Article 29(1). This is also seconded by various decisions of this Court, where some such regulatory interventions by the State were held to not constitute a curtailment of Article 29(1) rights.198 In addition, although not germane to the controversy at hand, we must add a word of caution that not all cultural practices of a section of citizens—for example, those blatantly running against the spirit and grain of our Constitution, like casteism and gender discrimination—would be protected by Article 29(1). violation of Article 29, therefore hinges on the ‘nature’ and ‘degree’ of State intervention and not merely on the simpliciter fact of intervention. In other words, the violation of Article 29 is necessarily a question of law which requires adjudication of the circumstances, intention and effect of the state intervention on the aggrieved section of citizens, as well as the society at large. .To sum up our discussion, the rights conferred by Article 29(1) require that the State not 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. At the same time, the right under Article 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 280-295)
Citizenship Act 1955 – Section 6A and 9 –An individual falling under Sections 6A (2) and 6A (3) can only assert Indian citizenship. Such individuals are presumed to have relinquished their previous citizenship. If authorities have reasons to believe that the previous citizenship is still being exercised, they are empowered under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act and associated rules to take steps to revoke the Indian citizenship of the delinquent individuals. Consequently, it can be deduced that Section 6A does not contradict Section 9. (Para 153)
Constitution of India – Article 14 -The right to equality enshrined under Article 14 is not a mechanical idea of parity. Article 14 requires the legislature to treat equals equally, but it also allows for differential treatment if the characteristics of the classes differ.120 In fact, treating unequal entities alike and subjecting them to the same laws could potentially lead to greater injustice. Therefore, rather than enforcing a fixed procrustean notion of equality, Article 14 permits the legislature to classify individuals into different groups and apply distinct norms accordingly. (Para 168) -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 (Para 177) –
Constitution of India – Article 32 -The test for striking down a law on the grounds of vagueness can be viewed through two perspectives, both of which are to be taken into account, and the standards for the same have to be satisfied to sustain a challenge on the grounds of a law or provision being void for vagueness. Thus, a statute or its provision can be struck down for vagueness if: i. The authority interpreting and applying the impugned law or provision is not sufficiently guided by such law or provision and is conferred unfettered discretion by virtue of the same; and ii. When confronted with the plain meaning, a person of ordinary intelligence, amongst the persons regulated by the impugned 135 law or provision, faces difficulty in understanding the sphere of their application (Para 263)