Does the Presence of Different Ethnic Groups in a State Violate Cultural Rights? Supreme Court Weighs In on Assam Accord Case

9 minutes ago

2 min read

In a pivotal judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which recognizes the Assam Accord. A 4:1 majority of the bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, ruled that granting citizenship to migrants from Bangladesh does not infringe upon the cultural and linguistic rights of the Assamese people as protected under Article 29 of the Constitution.

Section 6A of the Citizenship Act allows migrants from Bangladesh who entered Assam before January 1, 1966, to be deemed Indian citizens. Additionally, those who entered between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, can seek citizenship based on eligibility criteria. However, migrants arriving after March 25, 1971, are considered illegal immigrants. This provision has been a central point of contention in Assam, where concerns about the preservation of local culture and language are often linked to fears of demographic change.

The petitioners argued that conferring citizenship to Bangladeshi migrants would lead to an influx of Bengali-speaking individuals, thus undermining the culture and linguistic heritage of the Assamese population. They claimed that Section 6A violates Article 29, which grants any section of citizens the right to conserve their distinct language, script, or culture.

Chief Justice Chandrachud, in his judgment, rejected this argument, asserting that the mere presence of different ethnic groups in a state does not infringe the cultural rights of the local population. He explained that Article 29(1) confers a right to "conserve" culture and language, meaning it grants groups the ability to take positive steps to protect their heritage. The petitioners, he noted, failed to prove that the presence of Bangladeshi migrants prevented the Assamese from conserving their culture or language.

CJI Chandrachud further pointed out that the Assamese cultural and linguistic identity is safeguarded by numerous constitutional and legislative provisions. These include special protections for tribal areas under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution and the Assam Official Language Act, which recognizes Assamese as the official language of the state while also protecting the use of Bengali in certain districts.

Justice JB Pardiwala, in his dissenting opinion, held that Section 6A should be declared unconstitutional prospectively, but the majority of the bench found no violation of Article 29 or any other constitutional provisions.

Ultimately, the Court ruled that Section 6A does not violate the cultural rights of the Assamese under Article 29(1), reaffirming the legitimacy of the Assam Accord and the legal pathway for migrants from Bangladesh to attain Indian citizenship.