Citizenship Act's Cut-off Dates: An Analysis Of Supreme Court's Balancing Act On Section 3 & Section 6A
Before discussing the legal aspects, it's essential to grasp Assam's special history and political situation. This context, unique within India, is key to understanding the issues since the state was formed on January 26, 1950.
Historical Perspective
Over centuries, various ethnic groups entered Assam at different points in time. The earliest ingress into Assam is attributed to the Indo-Aryans from North India, who migrated into the Brahmaputra Valley during the 3rd century A.D. under the Varman rule. Another notable migration was that of certain Dravidian groups, particularly the Nadiyals/Doms, during the later stages of the Kamrupa Pala rule. Over time, they assimilated with Mongoloid ethnic groups and gradually acquired more Mongoloid than Dravidian features.
At the end of the ancient period, the first Muslims—captive soldiers of the defeated Bakhtiar Khilji—settled in the Hajo area. The next significant immigrants were the Ahoms, who entered Assam when Sukaphaa led his followers through the Pangsau Pass in the Patkai Hills from South China. They were later followed by other Tai peoples, who were originally Buddhists. In due course, the Ahoms adopted the Hindu religion. Communities such as the Khamti, Khamyang, Aiton, Tai Phake, and Turung also settled in Upper Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. Towards the end of the medieval period, a small group of Sikhs settled in Assam and assimilated into the local culture and ethos.
With the beginning of the colonial period after the First Anglo-Burmese War and the Treaty of Yandabo (1826), political instability led to the migration of the Kachin and Kuki people across the Patkai and Arakan ranges. They later came to be known as the Singphos in Upper Assam and the Kuki-Chin tribes in Karbi Anglong and Dima Hasao. The establishment of tea plantations in Assam (1835) by the British brought in Mundari-speaking tribes such as the Munda, Santal, Savara, Oraon, and Gond. Alongside, the British administration also facilitated the settlement of service holders and professionals from Bengal, Rajasthan, and Nepal. To increase land productivity, the British encouraged Muslim peasants from Mymensingh district (present-day Bangladesh) to settle in Assam, beginning in 1901. The last major group to migrate was Bengali Hindu refugees, especially from Sylhet, following the Partition of India in 1947.
The Brahmaputra and Barak Valleys
The sociopolitical dynamics of Assam cannot be understood without reference to both the Brahmaputra Valley and the Barak Valley. In 1874, the British, citing administrative convenience, separated the district of Sylhet (then part of undivided Bengal) and included it within Assam. Similarly, the princely states of Goalpara and Cachar were also merged into Assam. From that point onwards, Sylhet, Goalpara, and Cachar became integral parts of Assam until 1947, when Partition reshaped the region.
Being part of Assam, a large number of residents from Sylhet (located in the Barak Valley) migrated to other regions of the state, particularly the Brahmaputra Valley, in search of employment and livelihood. Consequently, people from Sylhet were spread across different parts of Assam. However, Sylhet soon became a matter of contention between Indian leaders and those demanding the formation of Pakistan. Ultimately, a referendum was held on July 6, 1947, to resolve the issue. Pro-Pakistan leaders even sought to disenfranchise large numbers of tea garden labourers residing in Sylhet. The referendum resulted in the partition of Sylhet, with most of the district being incorporated into East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), while some areas, including parts of the present-day Karimganj district, remained with India. The referendum significantly altered the demographic composition of Assam. It also created a unique historical situation wherein the Barak Valley and Brahmaputra Valley developed different sociocultural dynamics while remaining politically unified.
Demographic Shifts
The demography of Assam has been continuously shaped by waves of migration. During the colonial period, large numbers of Bengali Muslim peasants were encouraged by both the British and later by Sir Syed Muhammad Sadullah, the then Prime Minister of Assam, to settle in the fertile chars (riverine tracts). Following Independence, lakhs of Bengali Hindu refugees migrated to Assam from East Pakistan. Once again, during the 1970–71 Liberation War, Hindus migrated in large numbers, fleeing persecution at the hands of the Pakistani army.
India's independence from British rule came through the partition of the country into India and Pakistan. This was marked by large-scale communal violence which resulted in genocide on both the Indian and Pakistani sides of the border, and this, in turn, resulted in the large-scale migration of minority populations from Pakistan to India, both in the east and the west.
In the wake of independence through partition, the Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, on August 15, 1947, declared, among other things, the following:
"We think also of our brothers and sisters who have been cut off from us by political boundaries and who unhappily cannot share at present in the freedom that has come. They are of us and will remain of us whatever may happen, and we shall be sharers of their good and ill-fortune alike. There is no doubt, of course, that those displaced persons who have come to settle in India are bound to have their citizenship. If the law is inadequate in this respect, the law should be changed".
The then Home Minister of the national Government, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, while addressing a Convention of East Bengal Refugees, stated as under:
"We cannot fully enjoy the freedom that we have got until and unless we can share it with the Hindus of North and East Bengal. How can one forget the sufferings and sacrifices which they cheerfully endured for freeing our motherland from foreign domination; their future welfare must engage the most careful and serious attention of the Government and the people of the Indian Union in the light of developments that may take place hereafter".
Thus, our national leaders committed themselves to the all-around welfare of the minorities of Pakistan and those who had migrated into India in the wake of partition. After independence, to check the large-scale migration from East Pakistan to Assam, the Undesirable Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Bill was introduced in Parliament on December 20, 1949. In Clause 2 of the Bill, it was proposed that any person whose stay in Assam is detrimental to the interests of India should be expelled. The professed reason for bringing the Bill, in its original form, was to prevent the economy of Assam from degenerating under the pressure of illegal influx. The Bill was taken up for debate in the very first session of Parliament.
Leading the discussion on the Bill, Sardar Bhupinder Singh Mann, Member of Parliament from Punjab, first proposed the addition of a proviso to the main Clause 2 for the following reason:
"...Not only now but at any future date, if due to civil disturbances happening (i.e., in East Pakistan) or if they find that their stay is so uncomfortable and political conditions are such that no person with honour could stay on, they should be permitted to come over here and in no way should it be conditioned by any clause that their stay should not be detrimental to the interests of India and then only they would be permitted to stay on. Therefore, I want a proviso to be added in order that the Assam Government may not be permitted to eject Hindu refugees, that is those refugees who have come and sought refuge in India because they found Pakistan to be an unworthy place to live".
Smti. Sucheta Kripalani, Member of Parliament from Uttar Pradesh, while rooting for the proviso to Clause 2, submitted the following:
"We cannot deny our responsibility towards those people (i.e., Hindus of East Pakistan). They are citizens of India. They fought for the freedom of India. But today, unfortunately, they have been left beyond the limits of India. We know that Pakistan has been following a systematic policy by which Hindus have been gradually pushed out. If Hindus of eastern Pakistan are pushed out, they will have to find shelter. We cannot close our eyes to that fact. Even if it is difficult for our economy to support it, we have to give shelter to those shelterless people. It is a moral obligation."
Shri A.C. Guha, Member of Parliament from West Bengal, had the following to say:
"... to allay this suspicion of the Bengali Settlers and refugees there (i.e., in Assam), I wish something like a proviso be added at the end of clause 2 to the effect that the provisions of the Bill will not be applied to anybody who is a refugee or displaced person".
Replying to the debate and accepting the suggestion for adding the proviso to Clause 2, Shri Gopalaswami (the then Minister of Transport and Railways), who moved the Bill, submitted as under:
"...those who subsequent to the partition of this sub-continent on 15th August, 1947, have migrated in fear to Assam, because of disturbances in Pakistan or fear of their being badly dealt with in Pakistan, with regard to that category of people also, we could, by executive action, effectively prevent this measure from being applied to such persons. But I see that there is a very large volume of feeling in the House in this matter, that this matter should be made perfectly clear in the Bill itself, and I propose to accept the proposed proviso. The idea is to make the Bill itself prevent the application of this enactment to such people".
Enactment of Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950: Finally, Parliament enacted the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950. The proviso to Section 2 of the Act ensured the rights of religiously persecuted minorities of the then East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) stood secured for all time to come by the will of the country. The Constitutional Bench, in its decision reported in (2024) 3 SCC 1 (In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955), also held that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 should be read harmoniously with the other existing provisions and thus cannot be said to be contrary to the object of the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950.
Assam Agitation & Enactment of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955
Detection of Foreigners under the Citizenship Act and Related Laws
For the State of Assam, the detection of foreigners is primarily governed by Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.
Background Leading to the Enactment of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act
Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, was inserted specifically for Assam through a parliamentary enactment in 1985. This was the outcome of the long agitation led by the All Assam Students' Union (AASU), which culminated in the signing of the Assam Accord on August 15, 1985, between AASU, the Central Government, and the State Government of Assam. The Accord sought the detection and deportation of illegal immigrants. To give legal effect to the relevant clauses of the Accord, Section 6A was introduced in the Citizenship Act, 1955, recognizing certain categories of migrants of Indian origin who came to Assam from the specified territory within defined timelines.
The classification under Section 6A is as follows:
- Migrants prior to January 1, 1966: Treated as Indian citizens.
- Migrants from January 1, 1966, to March 24, 1971:
- To be detected under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.
- Required to register themselves with the prescribed authority.
- If their names were included in electoral rolls, such names were to be deleted.
- They would be disenfranchised for 10 years from the date of registration.
Thus, the cut-off date for the detection of foreigners in Assam was fixed as March 24, 1971, and anyone entering thereafter from the specified territory was to be treated as a foreigner. Presently, Foreigners' Tribunals in Assam exercise powers under the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, and the Citizenship Act, 1955 (as amended). Upon reference, the Tribunal submits its opinion to the competent authority under Section 3(1) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.
The Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983
In 1983, Parliament enacted the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983, which applied exclusively to Assam. This Act removed the detection and deportation of foreigners from the ambit of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and vested it in Special Tribunals with separate procedures. However, the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005) 5 SCC 665 struck down the Act of 1983 as ultra vires. Later, in Sarbananda Sonowal (II) (2007) 1 SCC 174, para 55, the Court emphasized that adequate safeguards must be ensured so that no genuine Indian citizen is wrongfully expelled. Consequently, detection and deportation in Assam reverted to the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.
Insertion of Clause 3A in the Foreigners Order, 1948
By a Notification dated 07.09.2015, the Government of India inserted Clause 3A into the Foreigners Order, 1948. This clause exempted persons belonging to minority communities from Bangladesh and Pakistan—namely Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians—who entered India on or before 31.12.2014, from the operation of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and related orders, even if:
- They had entered without valid documents, or
- Their valid documents (passport/travel papers) had expired.
Enactment of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 & Rules
While Clause 3A allowed such migrants to stay in India, it did not provide for citizenship. To address this, Parliament enacted the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, which granted a pathway to Indian citizenship for persecuted minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan belonging to the six religions mentioned above. The 2019 amendment reduced the residency requirement for naturalization from 11 years to 6 years for such migrants. On 11.03.2024, the Ministry of Home Affairs officially announced the Rules for the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. On 03.09.2025, the Government of India extended the cut-off date under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) from 31.12.2014 to 31.12.2024. The notification, issued under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, allows Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who entered India on or before 31.12.2024 to stay in the country and apply for Indian citizenship, even if they lack valid travel documents. This marks a significant policy shift from the original 2019 framework, which restricted eligibility to migrants who had entered India by 31.12.2014.
Legality of Citizenship Laws in Respect of the State of Assam
a) Power of Parliament to Enact Citizenship Laws vis-à-vis Special Enactment under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955
The issue regarding Parliament's competence to enact special provisions on citizenship for Assam—particularly Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955—was raised on the grounds of region-wise disparity and alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. This question was conclusively decided by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, (2024) 3 SCC 1. The Court examined the scope of Article 11 of the Constitution, which expressly empowers Parliament to make provisions relating to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship. Article 11 further clarifies that other provisions of Part II do not curtail Parliament's power in this regard.
In fact, in Izhar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India, 1962 Supp (3) SCR 235 @ para 11, a Constitution Bench had categorically held:
"Article 11 confers and recognizes the power of Parliament to make any provision with respect to not only acquisition but also termination of citizenship as well as all matters relating to citizenship. Thus, it would be open to Parliament to affect the rights of citizenship, and the provisions made by the parliamentary statute in that behalf cannot be impeached on the ground that they are inconsistent with the provisions contained in Articles 5 to 10 of Part II. In this connection, it is important to bear in mind that Article 11 has been included in Part II in order to make it clear that the sovereign right of Parliament to deal with citizenship and all questions connected with it is not impaired by the rest of the provisions of the said Part".
Thus, the principle laid down in Izhar Ahmad Khan affirmed Parliament's sovereign authority to regulate the acquisition and termination of citizenship. The new question of law, however, was whether Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, though enacted in the exercise of this sovereign power, suffers from unconstitutionality on the ground of regional disparity and violation of Article 14.
This was addressed by the Constitution Bench in In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (2024) 3 SCC 1, where the then CJI Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud held at paras 40–41:
Para 40 - In Izhar Ahmed (supra), the observations that statutory provisions on citizenship cannot be challenged on the ground of violation of provisions in Part II cannot be interpreted as a reading in of a non-obstante clause in Article 11. Provisions of the parliamentary law on citizenship cannot be challenged on the ground of violation of the provisions of Part II because the constitutional provisions on citizenship are redundant for all purposes after the commencement of the Constitution.
Para 41 - Similarly, the reason that Article 11 does not include a clause (similar to Article 4(2)) that the law shall not be deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution for the purpose of Article 368 is because there is no possibility of the law amending the constitutional provisions in Part II in view of the temporal limit of all the provisions.
Therefore, the constitutional validity of Section 6A was upheld by the Supreme Court.
b) Legal Friction between Section 3(1)(a), (b), (c) and Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955
Although the Constitution Bench upheld the validity of Section 6A, it acknowledged the existence of unresolved legal frictions regarding the cut-off dates under Section 3 and Section 6A. At para 21 of the judgment authored by Hon'ble Justices Surya Kant, M.M. Sundresh, and Manoj Misra, a comparative table of cut-off dates prescribed under Section 3(1)(a), 3(1)(b), and 3(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (as amended) was referred to.
The issue arises because Section 3 lays down the general provision for citizenship by birth applicable across India, whereas Section 6A lays down a special regime applicable only to Assam, pursuant to the Assam Accord. This creates a situation where two different cut-off dates operate simultaneously—one under Section 3 (general) and another under Section 6A (special for Assam).
A comparative table (as referred to by the Apex Court) highlights the disparity:
| Provision | Applicable Cut-off Date | Scope | Applicability |
| Sec 3(1)(a) | Born between 26.01.1950 – 01.07.1987 | Citizenship by birth | All India |
| Sec 3(1)(b) | Born 01.07.1987 – 03.12.2004 | One parent must be a citizen | All India |
| Sec 6A | Migrants before 24.03.1971 | Special rule for Assam | Assam only |
The substantial issues arising from the above circumstances require further deliberation. A person who is a citizen by birth is entitled to protection under Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (as amended). The cut-off date for availing such protection under Section 3(1)(a) is 01.07.1987, and under Section 3(1)(b) it is 03.12.2004. However, under Section 6A, which specifically applies to Assam, the cut-off date is 24.03.1971. This divergence creates legal friction. Section 3 of the Act is a general provision applicable throughout India, while Section 6A is a special provision confined to the State of Assam with a different cut-off date.
To illustrate this friction: If a child is born in Assam after 24.03.1971 to illegal immigrant parents, then, under Section 6A, he or she will not qualify as a citizen by birth. In contrast, under Section 3, any child born before 01.07.1987—even to two illegal immigrant parents—or born between 01.07.1987 and 03.12.2004 to at least one Indian parent, would be considered a citizen of India. Thus, the conflicting cut-off dates under Sections 3 and 6A call for deliberation on their harmonious coexistence.
After the Constitutional Bench decision reported in (2024) 3 SCC 1 (In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955), the cut-off date of 24.03.1971 under Section 6A was upheld. This decision may, in fact, represent a win-win situation for all stakeholders. Had the Hon'ble Supreme Court interfered with Section 6A on the ground that it created region-specific discrimination violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the applicable cut-off dates would have shifted forward to 01.07.1987 (under Section 3(1)(a)) and 03.12.2004 [under Section 3(1)(b)], by virtue of the principle of citizenship by birth. This outcome would have been far more detrimental to both the petitioners' sides and the people of Assam, who had long agitated to protect their rights and privileges if the cut-off date were pushed back to 19.07.1948 under Article 6 of the Constitution.
Thus, by upholding Section 6A, the Hon'ble Supreme Court performed a balancing act, harmoniously construing Section 6A with Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, while keeping in mind the complexities of different provisions with varying cut-off dates. The Court also ensured that genuine Indian citizens are not harassed. Consequently, the decision to uphold Section 6A may indeed be regarded as a win-win outcome for all stakeholders.
Author is Advocate on Record Supreme Court of India & Former State Counsel for Assam in Supreme Court
Views Are Personal.
Reference: