Justice JB Pardiwala, in his dissenting opinion on the five-judge Constitution bench ruling upholding Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, declared the provision unconstitutional, arguing that it has failed to prevent illegal immigration into Assam. Section 6A, enacted in 1985 as part of the Assam Accord, was initially designed to address the influx of immigrants from Bangladesh by offering citizenship to those who arrived before March 25, 1971. However, Justice Pardiwala contended that the law has, over time, become counterproductive, exacerbating illegal immigration rather than controlling it.
In his judgment, Justice Pardiwala highlighted the absence of a temporal limit for the application of Section 6A, which continues to allow people who entered India from Bangladesh between 1966 and 1971 to apply for citizenship. This ongoing eligibility, he argued, has led to the continued presence of illegal immigrants in Assam, with many taking advantage of the flawed detection mechanism.
He noted that Section 6A’s reliance on voluntary registration has allowed many immigrants to avoid detection, as being identified as a foreigner could lead to deportation or loss of voting rights. Additionally, the judge criticized the mechanism as prone to abuse, describing it as a “beacon” for illegal immigrants to enter Assam and take advantage of the system.
Justice Pardiwala also questioned the justification for classifying immigrants from the pre-1966 and 1966-71 periods separately, stating that this distinction was primarily made to assuage the fears of the Assamese people regarding electoral impacts from newly naturalized citizens. He further pointed out that, while over 500,000 immigrants entered Assam between 1966 and 1971, only a fraction had been detected and granted citizenship.
Ultimately, the judge ruled that Section 6A was “manifestly arbitrary, temporally unreasonable, and demonstrably unconstitutional.” He called for the law’s prospective invalidation, ensuring that benefits already granted to immigrants in Assam would not be revoked. Justice Pardiwala emphasized that the indefinite continuation of this flawed detection process encourages further immigration into Assam and should be addressed to prevent long-term demographic and social consequences.
