Anti-Foreigners Agitation in Assam (1979–1985).-

1. Led by the
   1. All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) and
   2. All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP).
2. The movement demanded.-
   1. identification and deportation of illegal migrants
   2. protection of Assamese cultural and political identity.

 

Key Causes of the Assam Movement.-

Illegal Immigration: The large influx changed the demographics of Assam, creating fears among the local Assamese population about losing their cultural and linguistic identity, as well as concerns over employment and resources.

Electoral Manipulation: Illegal immigrants were being registered as voters, affecting the balance of power in elections.

Economic and Social Impact: The influx of migrants put pressure on Assam’s resources, including land, employment, and social services. The local Assamese community feared that they would be marginalized economically and politically in their own state.

Assam Accord 1985.-

1. Between.-
   1. Governments of India and
   2. Assam, and
   3. the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) and
   4. the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP)
      in New Delhi on August 15, 1985.

 

2. Agreed upon.-
   1. First.-

• • for purposes of detection and deletion of foreigners, 1.1.1966 shall be the base data and year
  • all persons who came to Assam prior to 1.1.1966, including those amongst them whose names appeared on the electoral rolls used in 1967 elections shall be regularised.

 

1. 2. Second.-
      • Foreigners who came to Assam after 1.1.1966 (inclusive) and upto 24th March, 1971 shall be detected in accordance with the provisions of The Foreigners Act, 1946, and The Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, and their names will be deleted from the electoral rolls in force.
      • “Such persons” will be required to register themselves before the Registration Officers.
      • On the expiry of a period of ten years following the date of detection, the names of all such persons which have been deleted from the electoral rolls shall be restored

 

1. 3. Third.-
      Foreigners who came to Assam on or after March 25, 1971 shall continue to be detected, deleted and practical steps shall be taken to expel such foreigners.

In Re: Section 6A Citizenship Act 1955.-

1. The 5-Judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra delivered the judgment.
2. Validity of Section 6A on the ground that it violates Articles 6,7,14, 29, 325, 326, 355 and the concept of Fraternity.

 

Contentions and Judgment.-

1. Contention.- Violation of Article 6 and 7.-
   1. Article 6. Rights of citizenship of certain persons who have migrated to India from Pakistan.-
      1. Cut off date.- 19^th July 1948
         1. Before this and ordinarily residing.
         2. On/After this and registered by application to concerned authority after ordinarily residing 6 months.
   2. Article 7. Rights of citizenship of certain migrants to Pakistan.
      1. Cut-off date.- 1^st March 1947.
      2. Migrated to Pakistan after this then not citizen of India.
      3. But if returned under “Permit Of Resettlement” then       Art 6(b) shall apply

 

Judgment.-  Article 11. Parliament to regulate the right of citizenship by law.

 

2. Contention.- Violation of Article 14.-
   1. Why a different cut-off date was set only for the state of Assam.

 

Judgment.- Not violative because it follows the two principles of the reasonable classification test.-

• Intelligible differentia.- The classification must be based on a clear and reasonable characteristic that differentiates the grouped people from those excluded.
• Rational nexus.- The classification must have a rational relationship to the objective the legislation seeks to achieve.

 

3. Contention.- Violation of Article 29 and Article 355.-
   1. Art 29. Protection of interests of minorities.

Clause 1.- Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.

 

Judgment.-

• First, the operation of the law must not interfere with the ability of the “section” to take steps to protect the culture from harm or destruction. Second, the provision must be read in light of the multi-cultural and plural nation that India is.
• The mere presence of different ethnic groups in a State is not sufficient to infringe the right guaranteed by Article 29(1).

 

1. 2. Art 355. Duty of the Union to protect States against external aggression and internal disturbance

It shall be the duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the Government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.

 

4. Judgment.-
   Section 6A is limited in its ambit and does not by itself create unabated migration or legitimize its continuance due to its limited grant of citizenship to migrants.
   
   Contention.- Violation of Article 326.-
   1. Art. 326.- Election on the basis of the adult suffrage.

Judgment.-

• Article 326 confers the right to vote upon individuals and does not elaborate on the procedure of exclusion of persons from this entitlement.
• If there is an inclusion of ineligible migrants in the voter list, persons aggrieved are free to invoke the existing provisions under the Representation of the People Acts of 1950 and 1951, to seek the removal of such individual voters from the voter list.

5. Contention.- Violation of concept of ‘Fraternity’.
   1. They asserted that the constitutional mandate in the Preamble pertains to fraternity amongst citizens and must be interpreted in the context of unity and integrity of the nation and that this notion of fraternity might be destroyed when a legislative enactment such as Section 6A threatens to destroy the cultural demography of that citizenry.
      
      You can also read the latest judgment by visiting [Blog].
      For more information, visit [ALEC Enquiry].