2. Historical Context

• Assam Accord (1985): Following an influx of immigrants post-1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, Assam saw significant protests. The Accord aimed to protect Assam’s demographic and cultural interests.

• Section 6A Provisions:

o Recognized as citizens those of Indian origin arriving in Assam before January 1, 1966.

o Allowed others arriving between January 1, 1966, and March 24, 1971, to apply for citizenship if meeting certain conditions.

3. Supreme Court’s Decision

• Majority Opinion (4:1) upheld the constitutionality of Section 6A with directions for improved enforcement.

• Directions for Enforcement: Reiterated instructions from Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India and emphasized the need for adequate infrastructure to identify and deport post- 1971 illegal migrants.

• Dissent (Justice Pardiwala): Declared Section 6A unconstitutional due to procedural and implementation flaws.

4. Key Findings

• Review of Foreign Policy in Law: The Court affirmed it could review policies codified into statutes, such as Section 6A, in light of constitutional principles.

• Doctrine of Laches: Since the issue involved public interest, the delay in challenging Section 6A was deemed non-preclusive.

5. Section 6A and Part II of the Constitution

• Majority View: Section 6A aligns with the intent of Articles 6 and 7, which provide for citizenship to those of Indian origin affected by regional conflicts.

• Dissent: Justice Pardiwala argued that Section 6A diverges from Articles 6 and 7 due to procedural discrepancies and lack of a deadline for citizenship applications.

6. Article 14 (Equality)

• Majority: Found that differentiating Assam’s situation was constitutionally valid, as the state faced unique migratory pressures justifying special classification.

• Rationale: Parliament enacted Section 6A to uphold the Assam Accord's purpose and address Assam’s specific challenges.

7. Section 6A’s Reasonableness and Arbitrariness

• Majority: Held the provision reasonable, as historical and administrative factors supported varying cut-off dates (1966 and 1971).

• Dissent: Justice Pardiwala criticized Section 6A’s vagueness in defining “ordinary residence” and its lack of a mechanism for timely identification and naturalization of immigrants.

8. Article 29(1) (Cultural Rights of Minorities)

• Majority: Section 6A’s aim to regulate immigration was seen as not infringing on Assam’s cultural rights under Article 29.

• Concurring: C.J. Chandrachud observed that demographic diversity alone does not violate cultural protection rights.

9. Article 355 (Union’s Duty to Protect States)

• Majority and Concurring: Recognized that Section 6A’s structured citizenship process does not constitute “external aggression,” as Article 355 is a duty without creating enforceable individual rights.