The Supreme Court Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of section 6A of The Citizenship Act, 1955, that confers citizenship on a specific class of migrants from Bangladesh to Assam. A five-judge bench that delivered this judgement was led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.

Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, in a separate opinion backing Justice Kant, said Section 6A was Parliament’s balancing act between its humanitarian view towards immigrants from Bangladesh and the impact of the huge influx on Assam’s economic and cultural resources.

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which was insert

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, aligning with the Assam Accord. This verdict supports the legal framework for addressing migration issues in Assam following historical events like the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War.

Crucially, the top court underscored that Section 6A aligned with the framework provided by Articles 6 and 11 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court upholds Assam Accord as political solution to illegal migration, with majority verdict on Citizenship Act.

Section 6A was inserted into the Citizenship Act as a special provision to deal with the citizenship of people covered under the Assam Accord

What does Section 6A of the Citizenship Act state? Why was it challenged? What does the SC verdict mean for NRC?

CJI Chandrachud, Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh and Manoj Misra concurred on validity of Section 6A of Citizenship Act.