1. Framing the Intervention 22 The report’s central claim is therefore stark: the FT system is not merely flawed—it is irreconcilable with the principles of constitutional democracy and the rule of law. Its procedural and doctrinal pathologies are too entrenched to be addressed through incremental reform or case-by-case judicial intervention. Only a fundamental rethinking of the legal and institutional frameworks governing citizenship determination can restore fairness, legality, and justice to the process. By diagnosing the core failures of the FT regime—through legal critique, empirical evidence, and institutional analysis—this report seeks to contribute to that necessary transformation. At stake is not only the fate of millions in Assam but the integrity of India’s constitutional order itself. 1.3 Political and Legal Historical Background This report does not take a position on the contested historical facts or political claims regarding migration in Assam. The region’s migration history remains deeply debated, and questions of scale, cause, and pattern persist in academic and public discourse. What this report asserts is that irrespective of one’s historical perspective, it is the law—not sentiment, suspicion, or narrative—that must govern citizenship determination. Mechanisms designed to distinguish citizens from so-called foreigners must meet the highest standards of legality, accuracy, and fairness. The stakes could not be higher: wrongful denationalisation brings the gravest harms—statelessness, detention, deportation, and exclusion from civic life. As the Supreme Court held in Rahim Ali, such “life-altering” consequences demand the strictest procedural safeguards.27 The longer arc of India’s citizenship policy emerged out of the country’s partition in 1947, leading to the creation of Pakistan on the eastern and western borders. The current legal architecture in Assam was influenced by subsequent developments, arguably most by the Assam agitation (1979–1985). This agitation, led by Assamese-speaking communities in the state, was catalysed by migration— initially flows of people fleeing the atrocities during Bangladesh’s War of Independence—and longstanding anti-immigrant sentiment, especially against Bengali-speaking or Bengali-origin Hindus and Muslims. Although Assam is socially diverse, with indigenous communities (including Adivasi, Boro, Karbi, Mising, and other indigenous “Scheduled Tribes”), Assamese Hindus, Bengali speakers, and Muslims, the anti-immigrant discourse has often failed to distinguish between long standing residents and more recent arrivals. The 1985 Assam Accord responded to these anxieties by establishing 24 March 1971 (the date of the creation of Bangladesh) as the cut-off for citizenship for migrants, and enacting Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. This amendment created a special regime for Assam—supplementing the national framework (citizenship by birth under s. 3, descent under s. 4, registration under s. 5, and naturalisation under s. 6)—through a three-tier system: pre-1966 entrants are deemed citizens; those who entered between 1966 and March 1971 must register and wait ten years for full rights; post-1971 entrants are labelled foreigners.28