Constitutionalism and Federalism in India: Section 6A, NSA, Parliamentary Privileges and Delhi GNCTD Amendment Act
Understanding India’s constitutional architecture involves more than memorising articles — it demands appreciating why legal provisions matter in practice. Recently, four key topics — Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, the National Security Act (NSA), Parliamentary Privileges, and the Delhi GNCTD Amendment Act — have surfaced in public discourse and UPSC mains answers because they challenge core constitutional principles like constitutionalism and federalism.
This article explains each issue, the constitutional questions involved, and how they inter-relate in the broader scheme of Indian governance.
Section 6A of the Citizenship Act — Balancing Special Regimes with Equality
Section 6A was inserted into the Citizenship Act, 1955 as part of political settlement measures following the Assam Accord of 1985. It provides a cut-off date for citizenship eligibility in Assam — mainly affecting migrants from Bangladesh who entered between 1 January 1966 and 25 March 1971.
In October 2024, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A by a 4:1 majority. The majority held that Parliament had the competence to enact this special regime for Assam, viewing it as a balance between legislative objectives and constitutional mandates, and that the provision did not violate core constitutional guarantees like equality.
However, Justice J.B. Pardiwala dissented, arguing that while the law may have been valid when enacted, changing realities meant the provision had become unreasonable over time.
Constitutionalism link: Debates over Section 6A test how special legislative carve-outs (designed to implement political accords) interact with equality before law (Article 14) and the basic structure doctrine — especially how long such carve-outs remain consistent with constitutional morality.
Federalism link: Assam’s unique demographic challenges raised questions about special state-specific citizenship rules, and whether national citizenship laws can validly differentiate states within the Union for citizenship norms without violating federal equilibrium.
National Security Act (NSA) — Security vs. Liberty
The National Security Act, 1980 is a preventive detention law giving both the Central and State governments authority to detain persons without trial to pre-empt actions that might threaten public order, national security, or foreign relations.
Preventive detention in India operates under Article 22 of the Constitution, which expressly permits such detention under defined circumstances — albeit with procedural safeguards like the right to be informed of grounds and review by an advisory board.
Constitutionalism link: NSA sits at the heart of the security–liberty tension. While Article 22 allows preventive detention, critics argue that broad executive discretion may undermine due process and fundamental rights (Articles 14, 19, 21) if safeguards are weak or judicial oversight is limited.
Judicial review of NSA’s use — even during peace time — reflects constitutionalism, as courts examine whether detention orders are justified, proportional, and compatible with constitutional freedoms.
Federalism link: The Act applies across India and empowers both State and Central authorities. Federal dynamics surface when States and the Centre use NSA differently, reflecting divergent priorities in policing, public order, and internal security. This interplay often affects centre–state relations, especially in volatile regions.
Parliamentary Privileges — Limits of Legislative Immunity
Parliamentary privileges (under Articles 105 and 194) protect members of Parliament and state legislatures in their legislative functions. These include freedom of speech in the House and immunity from legal proceedings for actions within the House.
However, the Supreme Court in Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024) clarified that privileges do not confer absolute immunity — for example, a lawmaker does not have immunity for acts like bribery even if they occur during parliamentary duties.
Constitutionalism link: This reinforces that no organ of the state is above the Constitution. Legislative privileges must be read in harmony with rule of law and fundamental rights — privileges enable Parliament to function effectively but cannot be a shield for wrongdoing.
Federalism link: Parliamentary privileges also apply to state legislatures, so clarifying their limits ensures uniform standards across the Union, preventing sub-national legislatures from claiming disproportionate immunities.
Delhi GNCTD Amendment Act — Federalism and the Capital’s Governance
The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act, 2023 — often referred to as the Delhi Services Act — amended the governance framework of Delhi. It created the National Capital Civil Services Authority (NCCSA) and strengthened the Lieutenant Governor’s (LG) role, especially over control of services and bureaucracy.
This sparked debate because the Delhi Legislative Assembly historically argued (backed by Supreme Court judgments) that executive control over civil services was part of its mandate, except for subjects reserved for the Centre (police, public order, land). Critics argue the amendment dilutes Delhi’s autonomy and upends representative will and accountability, whereas supporters contend it clarifies constitutional roles under Article 239AA.
Constitutionalism link: The issue questions constitutional design vs. political intervention — how far Parliament can restructure governance within a Union Territory without undermining democratic self-government and accountability.
Federalism link: This is a classic asymmetric federalism challenge. Delhi is neither a full state nor a typical Union Territory. Balancing the Centre’s interests in the national capital with democratic autonomy of a locally elected government is inherently a federal question about distribution of powers between levels of government.
Bringing It All Together: Constitutionalism ↔ Federalism
In each of these areas, the core constitutional concerns can be summarised as follows:
Constitutionalism
- The Constitution is a higher legal order that constrains executive and legislative power.
- Judicial review, fundamental rights, and clear procedural safeguards are central to maintaining constitutionalism.
- Section 6A, NSA, and limits on privileges demonstrate how laws must cohere with constitutional values, even when addressing socio-political concerns.
Federalism
India’s federal structure accommodates diverse regional needs while maintaining national unity.
The debates around Section 6A and Delhi GNCTD Amendment Act illustrate tensions in centre–state relations and territorial autonomy.
Policies like the NSA involve both levels of government, showing federal cooperation in internal security but also potential friction.
Conclusion
The interplay between constitutionalism and federalism forms the backbone of India’s constitutional democracy. The four developments discussed — Section 6A, NSA, Parliamentary Privileges, and the Delhi GNCTD Amendment Act — show how constitutional text, principles, judicial interpretation, and political exigencies converge. For UPSC aspirants, building answers around the constitutional challenge, judicial response, and federal implications will help craft analytical and high-scoring responses.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1. Why is Section 6A of the Citizenship Act important for UPSC?
Section 6A is important because it creates a state-specific citizenship framework for Assam, raising questions related to Article 14 (equality), citizenship powers of Parliament, and federal accommodation of regional agreements like the Assam Accord.
Q2. How does the National Security Act (NSA) relate to constitutionalism?
The NSA tests constitutionalism by permitting preventive detention, which directly impacts personal liberty under Article 21 and procedural safeguards under Article 22. Its frequent judicial scrutiny highlights the need to balance national security with constitutional limits on executive power.
Q3. Are parliamentary privileges absolute in India?
No. Parliamentary privileges under Articles 105 and 194 are subject to constitutional limitations. Recent Supreme Court judgments have clarified that privileges cannot override fundamental rights or the rule of law, reinforcing constitutional supremacy.
Q4. Why is the Delhi GNCTD Amendment Act seen as a federalism issue?
The Act alters the power balance between the elected Delhi government and the Lieutenant Governor, raising concerns about asymmetric federalism, democratic accountability, and whether Parliament can dilute the autonomy of a quasi-state structure under Article 239AA.
Q5. What is the common constitutional thread linking these four issues?
All four issues highlight the tension between executive authority and constitutional limits, questioning how far the State can go without undermining constitutional morality, federal balance, and democratic governance.
Q6. Can these topics be asked together in UPSC GS-II?
Yes. UPSC increasingly links such issues to test conceptual clarity on constitutionalism and federalism, often through analytical or case-based questions rather than isolated factual queries.
Q7. How should aspirants approach such integrated constitutional topics?
Aspirants should:
- Identify the constitutional provision involved
- Link it to basic structure principles
- Mention judicial interpretation
- Analyse the federal or institutional impact
