Most Affordable IAS Coaching in India  

19 Dec 2024 : The Hindu Editorial

Editorial 1: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act — why it fails Assam

Context

The top court’s recent ruling upholding the constitutional validity of Section 6A, fails to address key constitutional concerns, particularly those that impact Assam’s indigenous population.

 

Introduction

The 4:1 majority ruling by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India, in October 2024, that upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 is significant. This provision establishes a distinct framework for migrants from the former East Pakistan (Bangladesh) who settled in Assam, allowing them to acquire Indian citizenship if they arrived before March 25, 1971. It is worth analysing the judgment for constitutional violations that were overlooked by the majority decision, and also discussing the potential negative implications of the ruling.

Justification for Article 14 Test by D.Y. Chandrachud

  • Arbitrary reasoning: The judgment seems to suffer from arbitrary reasoning.
  • The then Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, justified the test of Article 14, specifically taking Assam out of comparison with other states.
    • Border Comparisons: He mentioned that although other states like West Bengal (2216.7 km), Meghalaya(443 km), Tripura (856 km), and Mizoram (318 km) share larger borders with Bangladesh compared to Assam (263 km), the impact of influx on Assam is more significant.
    • Impact on Assamese and Tribal populations: The impact of the influx on the cultural and political rights of the Assamese and Tribal populations was highlighted as greater in Assam than in other states.
    • Comparison of migrants: Forty lakh migrants in Assam may have a greater impact than fifty-seven lakh migrants in West Bengal due to Assam's smaller population and land area.
      • Thus, the singling out of Assam was deemed to be based on rational considerations.

 

Contradictory Reasoning on Article 29

  • Article 29 Examination: The Court held that the influx of people did not affect the language, script, or culture of the Assamese people.
  • Contradiction: Despite the reasoning on Article 14 justifying the impact of the influx on Assam, the Court contradicted this when testing against Article 29.
    • The Court concluded that the influx did not affect the cultural aspects or the ability of the Assamese people to protect them.
  • Crafting Judgment to Support Provision: The contradictory reasoning suggests that the judgment was crafted more to support the provision rather than to evaluate it thoroughly against constitutional principles.

 

The background

  • Introduction: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act was introduced in 1985 following the Assam Accord, an agreement reached between the Government of India and the leaders of the Assam Movement.
  • Origins of the movement: The Assam Movement arose in response to the migration from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) into Assam.
    • Concerns were raised about the preservation of local culture, economic strain, and political imbalancedue to the influx of migrants.
  • The Assam Accord sought to resolve these issues by setting specific cut-off dates for granting citizenship to migrants:
    • Before January 1, 1966: All individuals who migrated to Assam were declared Indian citizens.
    • Between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971: Citizenship could be granted to people after 10 years of residence in Assam.
    • After March 25, 1971: All migrants who arrived after this date were declared illegal migrants and were liable to detection and deportation.

 

Gaps in the reasoning

  • Section 6A is argued to violate Article 29 of the Constitution, which guarantees the protection of distinct culturaland linguistic identities within India.
  • Court's Ruling on Article 29:
    • The Court held that Section 6A was not violative of Article 29(1), stating that the mere presence of different ethnic groups in a state does not automatically infringe upon the cultural rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
    • Article 29(1) was interpreted as conferring the right to “conserve” culture, and the Court argued that this right allows a section of citizens to take positive steps to protect their language, script, or culture.
    • The Court emphasized that the petitioners failed to prove that the influx of migrants, facilitated by Section 6A, directly hindered the Assamese people's ability to take steps to conserve their culture.

 

Flaws in the Court’s Reasoning

  • Overlooking hindrances to cultural preservation: The Court focused on the abstract right to “conserve” culture but overlooked the fact that Section 6Acreates hindrances to the Assamese people in meaningfully preserving their cultural identity.
    • Formal recognition of the right to conserve culture is insufficient if the State allows circumstances that erode the very culture it seeks to protect.
  • Research supporting cultural and linguistic displacement: Research by Dinesh Bhugra and Matthew A. Becker found that during the acculturation process, both the immigrant and host cultures change. Changes occur in attitudes, family values, generational status, and social affiliations in both the majority and minority cultures as they interact.
    • The Court noted a research paper titled “The Change of Religion and Language Composition in the State of Assam in Northeast India”, which showed:
      • Between 1951 and 2001, the Bengali-speaking population in Assam increased by 29.7% (from 21.2% to 27.5%), while the proportion of Assamese-speaking people declined by 12.26% (from 69.3% to 60.8%).
      • From 1951 to 2011, the percentage of Bengali-speaking population in Assam increased by 36.36%(from 21.2% to 28.91%), while Assamese-speaking people declined by 30.18% (from 69.3% to 48.38%).
  • This demographic shift is not just a coexistence of ethnic groups but represents a cultural and linguistic displacement that has severely undermined the distinct identity of the Assamese people.

 

Temporal Unreasonableness and Manifest Arbitrariness

  • Temporal unreasonableness: A major constitutional flaw of Section 6A is its temporal unreasonableness, a concept under the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness.
    • While the law may have been constitutional at the time of enactment, it has become unreasonable over time due to changing circumstances, making Section 6A a clear example of this flaw.
  • Indefinite application: The law lacks any temporal limitation on its operation, allowing individuals from this stream to apply for citizenship indefinitely.
    • More than 40 years after the cut-off date, the law remains in force, rendering it ineffective in addressing the original problem it was designed to solve.

 

Faulty mechanism, its impact

  • Burden on the state: The mechanism under Section 6A(3) is flawed because it places the burden of initiating proceedings on the state, without providing a means for voluntary self-identification by migrants.
    • This means that suspected illegal immigrants must be referred to a foreigners’ tribunal, which then determines their status.
  • Lack of deadlines: The absence of any deadline for making such referrals allows the law to remain operational indefinitely, perpetuating a system that no longer serves its intended purpose.
  • Backlog and inefficiency of foreigners’ tribunals: The foreigners’ tribunal, responsible for determining the citizenship status of individuals referred under Section 6A, has become bogged down by the sheer volume of cases.
    • Even individuals who do not qualify under Section 6A can claim to fall within its purview, slowing down the entire process and leading to widespread confusion.

 

Conclusion

It seems the Court wrote the judgment to merely justify the enactment of Section 6A. The ruling fails to address key constitutional concerns, particularly those regarding the cultural and demographic impact on Assam’s indigenous population. The judgment overlooked how unchecked migration has eroded the linguistic and cultural identity of the Assamese people, in violation of Article 29’s protective intent. Moreover, the Court’s neglect of the provision’s temporal unreasonableness perpetuates arbitrary and outdated policies.

Editorial 2: Strengthening the roots of an agri-carbon market

Context

In India, existing carbon credit projects listed under non-governmental entities need to be examined to ensure inclusivity and efficiency.

 

Introduction

Carbon markets hold the potential to transform Indian agriculture, turning sustainable farming practices into a lucrative opportunity for farmers while combating climate change. In this, carbon pricing is a critical tool for mitigating climate change. It functions through compliance and voluntary carbon markets. Compliance markets, regulated by governments or international bodies such as the United Nations, impose emissions caps on companies.

  • Businesses exceeding these caps must either purchase carbon credits from projects that mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, such as agroforestry or sustainable agriculture projects, or pay carbon taxes for their extra emissions.
  • In contrast, the voluntary carbon market operates without regulation, allowing organisations to trade carbon credits through mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism, Verra, and Gold Standard, among others.
  • Together, these systems aim to reduce GHG emissions and support global climate goals.

 

Carbon markets, their working

  • Carbon markets are gaining momentum globally.
  • At COP29 in November 2024, a centralised carbon market under the UN received approval.
  • India announced plans to launch its own compliance and voluntary carbon markets in 2023.
  • Recently, the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), in collaboration with the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and State universities, listed five agriculture carbon credit projectsin Verra.
  • Additionality ensures that emission reductions happen only due to carbon credits, meaning farmers must adopt new practices. Those already using sustainable methods are not eligible for credits.
  • Permanence refers to the long-term durability of these benefits, such as ensuring that carbon stored in soilsthrough reduced tillage is not lost due to a return to conventional ploughing.

 

Challenges in Scaling Up India’s Agriculture Carbon Market

  • To assess the readiness of India’s agriculture sector for a full-scale carbon market, existing carbon credit projects under non-governmental entities like Verra must be examined.
  • If projects fail to deliver the promised environmental benefits and produce unreliable credits, buyers may lose confidence, halting purchases of agriculture carbon credits. This deprives farmers of extra income and discourages sustainable practices.
  • Ensuring high-quality credits from the start is essential to building trust and ensuring long-term farmer participation in Indian carbon markets.

 

Current Status of Agriculture Carbon Projects in India

  • Over 50 agriculture carbon farming projects have been listed in the Verra registry in just four years, targeting 1.6 million hectares of farmland in India.
  • These projects aim to generate approximately 4.7 million carbon credits annually, equivalent to offsetting the GHG emissions from 11 billion miles driven by an average gasoline-powered vehicle.
  • However, none of these projects has been registered, meaning carbon credits have not been issued, and farmershave not received the payments for their carbon reductions.

 

Carbon farming projects in India

  • A recent study published in Climate Policy — “Carbon farming in India: are the existing projects inclusive, additional, and permanent?” — examines seven carbon farming projects in Haryana and Madhya Pradesh.
  • The focus of the study is on socio-economic inclusiveness, additionality, and permanence.

 

Socio-Economic Inclusiveness in Carbon Farming Projects

  • Marginalised communities and small farmers were largely excluded from the projects.
  • Women made up only 4% of the participants.
  • Carbon farmers cultivated significantly more land:
    • 51% more land in Haryana.
    • 32% more land in Madhya Pradesh.
  • Among non-carbon farmers:
    • 46% of the land was owned by non-marginalised castes (general castes).
    • 17% of the land was owned by Scheduled Caste-Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) farmers.
  • Among carbon farmers: 63% of the land was owned by non-marginalised castes. Only 13% of the land was owned by SC/ST farmers.

 

Additionality and Practices in Carbon Farming

  • Some sustainable practices were already in place before the projects began, while others, such as:
    • Zero tillage,
    • Alternate wetting and drying,
    • Intercropping,
    • Reduced chemical fertilizer use,
    • Micro-irrigation,
    • Tree planting,
  • were newly adopted, which satisfies the additionality condition.
  • The study found that these practices can genuinely reduce GHG emissions when implemented effectively.

 

Challenges Faced in Carbon Farming Projects

  • 45% of farmers reported no communication.
  • Over 60% lacked training in new techniques.
  • 28% stopped sustainable practices by the second year, mainly due to insufficient financial incentives.
  • 99% of farmers had not received carbon credit payments.
  • Additional issues included:
    • Yield penalties.
    • Inadequate information on carbon farming.
  • Projects managed by startups focused solely on carbon credits (termed “Carbon Core” in the study) performed better than those run by subsidiaries or offshoots of larger corporations.
  • However, these projects were less inclusive of smallholders and marginalised communities.

 

Recommendations for India’s Carbon Market

  • To address the issues, India’s carbon market must incentivise socially inclusive projects by offering higher prices for carbon credits from projects that include smallholders and marginalised communities.
  • Effective communication, regular training, and guaranteed, timely payments can enhance farmer participation.
  • Collaborating with national and international research institutions to target suitable regions and interventionscan prevent yield penalties and protect food security.

 

Conclusion: An improving science

The science of measuring soil carbon and GHG emissions is expected to improve over time. In recent years, digital technologies have advanced significantly. Tools such as remote sensing, satellite imagery, drones, and sensors for monitoring project activities will soon become more accessible. However, for carbon markets to succeed, the critical focus must be addressing the grand old implementation challenges. Building a thriving agricultural carbon market in India requires collaboration among policymakers, researchers, and private entities to ensure inclusivity, transparency, timely rewards for farmers, and improved project implementation.