Judgment Intelligence
Disposed Of- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 17 October 2024
- Bench
- Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant, Justice M.M. Sundresh, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Citizenship Act, 1955 - Section 6A; Constitution of India - Articles 6, 7, 11, 14, 29 and 355; Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950; Foreigners Act, 1946
Section 6A upheld 4:1; the writ petitions were disposed of with directions and the matter placed before the Chief Justice for a monitoring Bench (Surya Kant J., paras 391-393). The CJI answered the reference (Chandrachud CJI, para 126).
Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — judgment dated 17.10.2024
Key holdings
- Section 6A falls within the bounds of the Constitution and is a valid law (Surya Kant J., paras 387, 391).
- Immigrants who entered Assam on or after 25 March 1971 are illegal immigrants outside Section 6A (Surya Kant J., para 391).
- Parliament's citizenship power under Article 11 is not restricted by Part II (Surya Kant J., para 142).
- The Sarbananda Sonowal directions must be given effect to, under monitoring by a Bench (Surya Kant J., paras 391-392).
- Pardiwala J. would have declared Section 6A invalid with prospective effect (Pardiwala J., paras 206, 217).
Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha v. Union of India (2015) 3 SCC 1
Framed thirteen questions on the validity of Section 6A and referred them to a Constitution Bench.
- Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005) 5 SCC 665
Unabated migration can be 'external aggression' under Article 355, but Section 6A differs in degree; its directions are to be given effect to.
- Izhar Ahmed Khan v. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 1052
Article 11 lets Parliament make citizenship laws that cannot be impeached as inconsistent with Articles 5 to 10.
View all precedents (5)
- State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. (1974) 4 SCC 656
Who is similarly situated is judged by the purpose of the law; a classification is not invalid merely for being marginally under-inclusive.
- Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1
Legislation that is capricious, irrational or without adequate determining principle is manifestly arbitrary.