Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955 (Prelims- Polity & Governance; Mains- GS II: Polity)

Why in News?

The Supreme Court on October 17 upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which recognised the Assam Accord, by a 4:1 majority. The five-judge Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra delivered the judgment. Justice Pardiwala gave a dissenting judgment to hold Section 6A as unconstitutional.

Background 

Petitioners, the Assam Public Works President, the Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha, and many others, challenged the provision 6A , saying that it singles out Assam and has facilitated mass immigration. They claimed that the demographic of Assam changed drastically due to immediate citizenship being granted to immigrants who claimed that they entered Assam before the March 1971 cut-off date. 

Main Contentions Raised By The Petitioners regarding  Section 6A 

• The provision is outside the ambit of legislative competence and it is contrary to the “cut-off line” as provided under the Constitution.
• The provision undermines the overarching principles of democracy, federalism, and rule of law and violates the essential fabric of the Constitution as provided under the Preamble, namely, fraternity, citizenship, unity, and integrity of India.
• Violates fundamental rights as provided under Articles 14, 21, and 29.
• Violates political rights of citizens as provided under Articles 325 and 326.

Accordingly, petitioners prayed to declare that Section 6A as unconstitutional. 

Argument of Union

The Union had argued that it was empowered to make special laws on citizenship under Article 11 and declaring Section 6A as unconstitutional would make every citizen within it stateless.

The petitioners had argued that Section 6A facilitated mass immigration in Assam given that there is no end date to when the provision ceased to exist. 

Further, the mechanisms in place were not strong enough to verify if a person or their parents or their grandparents immigrated to Assam before the dates mentioned in the provision. Resultantly, they argued that mass immigration took place, affecting Assam’s demographic and culture, violating their cultural rights under Article 29 , argued that the provision violates Article 14 of the Constitution for singling out Assam from other states. 

CJI Chandrachud held provisions under  Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution prescribe a cut-off date for granting citizenship to persons entering India from Pakistan and those migrating from India to Pakistan. The petitioners argued that Section 6A violated these provisions as they also applied to Bangladesh, which was part of Pakistan when the Constitution was enacted. 

However, CJI held that Section 6A does not amend the Constitution, as Articles 6 and 7 only address citizenship for people on the date of the Constitution’s commencement—26 January 1950. 

Justice Kant also held that Section 6A does not violate Article 6. He clarified that Article 6 does not prohibit the granting of citizenship after the cut-off date of 19 July 1948. Further, he highlighted that Parliament has the authority under Article 11 to prescribe conditions for citizenship, and the Court should not interfere with the legislature’s determination of such a cut-off date. 

CJI Chandrachud held that The cut-off date of 24 March 1971 was rational, he said, as it distinguished “migrants of partition” from those entering after Pakistan initiated “Operation Searchlight” on 25 March 1971. Those who entered after were termed as “migrants of war” and, therefore illegal.

 He explained that Section 6A was introduced to handle the influx of migrants who had already entered India and those who were expected to enter the country. He characterised the Assam Accord as a “political solution” and Section 6A as a “legislative solution”, balancing humanitarian concerns for migrants of Indian origin with the economic and cultural impact of such migration on Indian states.

CJI Chandrachud also concluded that migration under Section 6A does not violate Article 355 of the Constitution. This provision obligates the Union to protect states from external aggression and internal disturbances. Petitioners argued that the mass influx of immigrants placed this burden on the Union, but CJI Chandrachud cautioned against such an interpretation. He stated that the provision is located in Part 18 of the Constitution, which deals with emergency powers, and allowing citizens or courts to invoke them could endanger the federal structure of India. 

CJI Chandrachud rejected the petitioners’ claims under Article 29, which protects the rights of ethnic and cultural minorities. He stated that the mere presence of different ethnic groups in Assam was insufficient to claim a violation of Article 29(1). To invoke Article 29, petitioners had to prove that an ethnic group could no longer protect its culture or language due to the presence of another group. Justice Kant in his opinion added that the petitioners “have failed to show either an actionable impact on Assamese culture, or trace the cause of it to Section 6A.” 

Justice Kant began by critiquing the petitioners’ interpretation of ‘fraternity’. He noted that the petitioners seemed to advocate for a restrictive notion of fraternity that would allow them to “choose their neighbours.” He rejected this view, stating that such an approach contradicts the very principles of fraternity envisioned by the Constituent Assembly. He stated that fraternity should not be applied in a “negative manner”. 

Regarding Article 21, Justice Kant found that, like in the case of Article 29, the petitioners had failed to demonstrate any “constitutionally actionable impact” on their communities. 

Similarly, he found no violation of the right to vote under Article 326, as Section 6A merely extends the right to vote to new citizens. 

After concluding his analysis, Justice Kant issued the following directions: 

• Section 6A is redundant for immigrants who entered after 25 March 1971; they are illegal and should be deported. 
• The statutory machinery and Foreigner Tribunals are inadequate and not proportionate to the requirement of giving time-bound effect to the legislative object of Section 6A.
• The implementation of these immigration and citizenship legislations should be monitored by the Supreme Court.

Procedure for appointment of Chief Justice of India (Prelims- Polity & Governance)

Why in News?

On 17 October 2024, incumbent Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud formally recommended Justice Sanjiv Khanna be appointed the next Chief Justice of India.

Tradition

• Tradition has been that the Chief Justice recommends the senior-most judge to be the next Chief Justice upon his retirement from the bench. 
• This long-standing tradition has been enshrined in the first section of the Memorandum of Procedure (1999) (MoP), which also provides the rules for appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts across the country. 

Memorandum of procedure of appointment of Supreme Court Judges

CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA                                                                                 

Appointment to the office of the Chief Justice of India should be made by the senior judge of the Supreme Court is considered fit to hold the office. The Union Minister of Law and Justice would, at the appropriate time, seek the recommendation of the outgoing Chief Justice of India for the appointment of the next Chief Justice of India.

• Whenever there is any doubt about the fitness of the seniormost Judge to hold the office of the Chief Justice of India, consultation with other Judges as envisaged in Article 124 (2) of the Constitution would be made for the appointment of the next Chief Justice of India.
• After receipt of the recommendation of the Chief Justice of India, the Union Minister of Law & Justice and Company Affairs will put up the recommendation to the Prime Minister who will advise the President in the matter of appointment.

So far, there have only been three instances when the senior-most judge was superseded for the Chief Justice position.  

• The first time this convention was breached was in February 1964, when Gajendragadkar J superseded Imam J, who was seriously unwell.
• The second breach was when A.N. Ray J was appointed as the CJI on April 25, 1973, by superseding three senior-most judges (Shelat, Hegde and Grover JJ). 
• For the third time in 1977 when M H Beg J superseded H R Khanna J. 

When did this tradition start?

When the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, Harilal Kania J, passed away in 1951, on hearing the rumour that the government was contemplating appointing somebody other than the senior-most justice, all the judges threatened to resign if the seniority norm was not followed.

Does the law mandate appointment of senior most judge as CJI?

It is customary, and not law, that the most senior judge of the Supreme Court, at the time when the current Chief Justice of India (CJI) is retiring, becomes the next CJI. 

Seniority is measured by the length of service in the Supreme Court.

Many have questioned the seniority principle, arguing that merit, rather than seniority, should decide the appointment of the CJI. Appointments through the seniority principle may lead to a ‘revolving door’ system, marked by short tenures.

The Chief Justice of India leads the Supreme Court and its Judges, Often described as the ‘first among equals’.  The CJI is the ‘Master of Roster’, and is tasked with constituting benches of two or more judges and assigning cases to those benches.   

Direct tax share in GDP hits 24-year high in FY24 (Prelims & Mains- Economy)

Why in News?

Personal income tax collections surged by 25.4% in FY24, surpassing corporation tax collections for the second consecutive year.

According to data released by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT)

• India’s direct tax collections as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) reached a 24-year high of 6.64% in the 2023-24 financial year (FY24)
• The surge in collections, which grew by 17.82%, far outpaced the country’s nominal GDP growth of 8.42% during the same period. This marked an improvement in tax buoyancy to 2.12, compared to 1.18 in the previous year.

• Direct taxes contributed 56.72% to the overall tax revenue, the highest in 14 years, up from 54.63% in FY23. Notably, this contribution was much lower at 36.31% in FY01, highlighting the growing share of direct taxes in India’s fiscal landscape.
• Corporation tax collections reported an increase of 10.3%, while personal income tax collections saw a remarkable rise of 25.4%. This marks the second consecutive year in which personal income tax collections have outpaced those from corporation tax,  ( Indicates a broader base of individual taxpayers contributing to government revenues)
• Maharashtra continued to lead in tax contributions, generating INR 7.61 trillion, which accounted for 40.4% of the total direct tax revenue from states in FY24.
• The administrative efficiency of tax collection has improved significantly, with the cost of collecting direct taxes declining to 0.44%, the lowest since FY01. This is seen as a reflection of advancements in the tax machinery.
• Income tax return filings increased by 10.7%, reaching 86.1 million in FY24, with individual filings rising by 9.6% to 76.4 million.  

List of direct taxes: Corporation Tax, Taxes on Income Other Than Corporation Tax, Hotel Receipts Tax, Interest Tax, Fringe Benefit Tax, Other Taxes on Income and Expenditure, Stamps and Registration Fees, Estate Duty, Taxes on Wealth, Securities Transaction Tax.

Wildlife board defers nod for Vedanta’s oil exploration in Assam (Prelims- Environment)

Why in news?

Recently, the standing committee of the National Board for Wildlife(NBWL) has deferred its nod to a Vedanta subsidiary’s proposal for oil exploration in the habitat of endangered Hoolock Gibbon in Assam’s Dessoi reserve forest.

About Hoolock Gibbon:

• Hoolock gibbons are primates like monkeys, langurs and chimpanzees. It is also an ape, the primates evolutionarily closest to humans. It is the only ape found in India, confined to the seven states of northeast India, with Brahmaputra as the distribution boundary.
•  Bunopithecus is a sub-generic division of the genus Hylobates containing two species, sericus and hoolock (with hoolock consisting of 2 subspecies, hoolock and leuconedys, in India).  
• Two subspecies under Hoolock: Hoolock hoolock is found west of the Chindwin River, and Hoolock leuconedys is found towards its east. 

Characterstics:

• Hoolock gibbon adults exhibit distinct sexual dimorphism in pelage colouration.
• The males are black overall, and the female becomes varying shades of brown and fawn at maturity. 
• Both H. hoolock and H. leuconedys infants are born with a pale brown natal coat.
• Female hoolock gibbons produce a thermoregulatory orange-coloured water soluble secretion on the entire body during high humidity or extreme heat.
• The eastern hoolock gibbon (Hoolock leuconedys) male can be differentiated from the western species (Hoolock hoolock) by its grizzled silver coloured chest; a silver genital tuft and the white brow streaks are widely separated in adult males.

Feeding ecology:

• All gibbons are fruit-pulp specialist feeders. They have a simple stomach with a limited ability to digest the secondary compounds and toxins present in leaves. Hoolock gibbons use 43 species of plants as a source of food.

Vocal communication:

Gibbons exhibit species specific loud, long, stereotyped vocalizations referred to as “calls” (short vocalizations) and “songs” (longer vocalizations), the song bouts serve to defend territory in females and to guard mates in males. 

Locomotion:

• Gibbons are specialized for an arboreal mode of life with specialized adaptations that enable braciation and suspensory feeding.
• They traverse across the canopy using their very long forelimbs hanging and jumping from branch to branch.

Habitat: Tropical evergreen forest

• wetter tropical semi-evergreen forests
• Sub-tropical monsoon evergreen broadleaf forests
• Sub-tropical evergreen broadleaf hill or mountain forests. 
• Less common in deciduous forest and scrub forest, 
• Prefer the mixed patches and pockets of evergreen forests
• Absent from mangroves 

Geographic distribution:

• Western (Hoolock hoolock hoolock) gibbons have distribution range extending from eastern through the Bangladesh, north-eastern Indian states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Tripura, and north-western part of Myanmar(west of the Chindwin River). 
• The distribution of eastern species (Hoolock leuconedys) is from Lohit district of Arunachal Pradesh to the areas between the rivers Dibang and Lohit in lower Dibang valley district of Arunachal Pradesh and from the Sadiya area of Assam.
• The boundary between the two species of Hoolock is the Chindwin River, which flows into the Irrawady River. 

Recent Updates:

• This year, the Environment Ministry’s forest advisory committee granted preliminary permissions for oil exploration in the Hoolock Gibbon habitat.
• Indian Railway Construction International Limited (IRCON) has proposed 25 KV electrification of a 9-km stretch on the Lumding-Dibrugarh section of the Northeast Frontier Railway. A 1.65 km stretch of railway line fragments the Gibbon sanctuary.
• NBWL suggested that adequate animal passage plans should be executed.

Threats to Hoolock Gibbons:

• The major threats are caused by the destruction, degradation and fragmentation of forests for settled and shifting agriculture, plantations, logging, fuelwood collection, and development projects such as mining, roads, and railways.
• Poaching for bush meat and trade.

[Habitat degradation and poaching have accounted for more than 50% decline in the Hoolock gibbon population in South Asia.]

Conservation:

• IUCN Status- a)Western Hoolock Gibbon: Endangered

                        b)Eastern Hoolock Gibbon: Vulnerable

• They are listed under Schedule 1 of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
• The western hoolock gibbon was designated as one of the top 10 threatened gibbon taxa of the world in a resolution taken in the gibbon symposium.
• Number of protected areas should be increased.
• Restoration of degraded forests with Gibbon-friendly food plants.
• More canopy bridges should be built to isolate the sanctuary.
• Local communities must be involved in monitoring protected areas.
• Proper analysis of Wildlife Laws.
• Sustainable development should be promoted.
• Research and Development should be promoted in Genetic and Parasitological studies.
• Transboundary conservation programs must be appreciated.