Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.510 OF 2007
COMMITTEE FOR C.R. OF C.A.P. & ORS. …PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India mainly seeks direction against Union of India
through Ministry of Home Affairs to grant citizenship to
JUDGMENT
the Chakma and Hajong Tribals who migrated to India in
1964-1969 and were settled in the State of Arunachal
Pradesh.
2. Petitioner No.1 has described itself as “Committee
for Citizenship Rights of the Chakmas of Arunachal
Pradesh” (“CCRC”). According to the averments in the
petition, representations were filed with the National
Human Rights Commission (“NHRC”) alleging
persecution of Chakmas and Hajongs in the State of
Page 1
Arunachal Pradesh. The NHRC approached this Court by
way of a Writ Petition (C) No.720 of 1995 titled
“ National Human Rights Commission vs . State of
Arunachal Pradesh ” seeking direction from this Court
to ensure that the Chakmas and Hajongs are not forcibly
ousted from the State of Arunachal Pradesh, which was
th 1
disposed of on 9 January, 1996 . In the said case, the
Union of India appeared before this Court and stated that
decision to settle the Chakmas in the State of Arunachal
Pradesh was taken after discussion between the
Government of India and the North-East Frontier Agency
(“NEFA”) Administration (Predecessor of the State of
Arunachal Pradesh). The Chakmas were residing in the
State of Arunachal Pradesh for more than three decades
and had close social, religious and economic ties. As per
JUDGMENT
joint statement issued by the Prime Ministers of India
and Bangladesh in February, 1972, the Union
Government took a decision to confer citizenship on the
Chakmas under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act,
1955 but the State of Arunachal Pradesh had
reservations on this count. The Central Government was
in favour of a dialogue between the State Government,
1
(1996) 1 SCC 742
Page 2
the Chakmas and all concerned to resolve the issue of
granting citizenship while also redressing the genuine
grievances of citizens of Arunachal Pradesh. The stand
of the State of Arunachal Pradesh was that it had
provided basic amenities to the Chakmas but the State
had a right to ask the Chakmas to quit the State. The
State could not permit outsiders to settle within its
territory as it had limited resources and the Union of
India had refused to share its responsibility. The Deputy
Commissioner of the area was to forward the
applications for citizenship after due inquiry but no such
application was pending. Further stand of the State was
that settlement of Chakmas will disturb its ethnic
balance and destroy its culture and identity. The tribals
of the State consider Chakmas as potential threat to
JUDGMENT
their tradition and culture.
Page 3
Writ Petition No.510 of 2007
3. This Court considered rival submissions and held
that the Chakmas apprehend threat on the All Arunachal
Pradesh Students’ Union (“AAPSU”) who were reported to
be enforcing economic blockades on the refugee camps,
adversely affecting supply of ration, medical and
essential facilities to the Chakmas. Some Chakmas had
died on account of blockade. This Court further noticed
that Chakmas could invoke Section 5(1)(a) of the
Citizenship Act by filing application in form prescribed by
Part II of the Citizenship Rules, 1956. The
observations in NHRC case (supra), inter alia, are as
follows :-
“ 18. From what we have said hereinbefore, there is no
doubt that the Chakmas who migrated from East
Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in 1964, first settled down
in the State of Assam and then shifted to areas which
now fall within the State of Arunachal Pradesh. They
have settled there since the last about two and a half
decades and have raised their families in the said
State. Their children have married and they too have
had children. Thus, a large number of them were born
in the State itself. Now it is proposed to uproot them by
force. The AAPSU has been giving out threats to
forcibly drive them out to the neighbouring State which
in turn is unwilling to accept them. The residents of the
neighbouring State have also threatened to kill them if
they try to enter their State. They are thus sandwiched
between two forces, each pushing in opposite direction
which can only hurt them. Faced with the prospect of
annihilation the NHRC was moved, which, finding it
impossible to extend protection to them, moved this
Court for certain reliefs.
JUDGMENT
19. By virtue of their long and prolonged stay in the
State, the Chakmas who migrated to, and those born in
Page 4 of 18
Page 4
Writ Petition No.510 of 2007
the State, seek citizenship under the Constitution read
with Section 5 of the Act. We have already indicated
earlier that if a person satisfies the requirements of
Section 5 of the Act, he/she can be registered as a
citizen of India. The procedure to be followed in
processing such requests has been outlined in Part II
of the Rules. We have adverted to the relevant rules
hereinbefore. According to these Rules, the application
for registration has to be made in the prescribed form,
duly affirmed, to the Collector within whose
jurisdiction he resides. After the application is so
received, the authority to register a person as a citizen
of India, is vested in the officer named under Rule 8 of
the Rules. Under Rule 9, the Collector is expected to
transmit every application under Section 5(1)(a) of the
Act to the Central Government. On a conjoint reading
of Rules 8 and 9 it becomes clear that the Collector
has merely to receive the application and forward it to
the Central Government. It is only the authority
constituted under Rule 8 which is empowered to
register a person as a citizen of India. It follows that
only that authority can refuse to entertain an
application made under Section 5 of the Act. Yet it is
an admitted fact that after receipt of the application,
the Deputy Collector (DC) makes an enquiry and if the
report is adverse, the DC refuses to forward the
application; in other words, he rejects the application
at the threshold and does not forward it to the Central
Government. The grievance of the Central Government
is that since the DC does not forward the applications,
it is not in a position to take a decision whether or not
to register the person as a citizen of India. That is why
it is said that the DC or Collector, who receives the
application should be directed to forward the same to
the Central Government to enable it to decide the
request on merits. It is obvious that by refusing to
forward the applications of the Chakmas to the Central
Government, the DC is failing in his duty and is also
preventing the Central Government from performing
its duty under the Act and the Rules.
JUDGMENT
20. We are a country governed by the Rule of Law. Our
Constitution confers certain rights on every human
being and certain other rights on citizens. Every
person is entitled to equality before the law and equal
protection of the laws. So also, no person can be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law. Thus the
State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every
human being, be he a citizen or otherwise, and it
cannot permit any body or group of persons, e.g., the
Page 5 of 18
Page 5
Writ Petition No.510 of 2007
AAPSU, to threaten the Chakmas to leave the State,
failing which they would be forced to do so. No State
Government worth the name can tolerate such threats
by one group of persons to another group of persons; it
is duty-bound to protect the threatened group from
such assaults and if it fails to do so, it will fail to
perform its constitutional as well as statutory
obligations. Those giving such threats would be liable
to be dealt with in accordance with law. The State
Government must act impartially and carry out its
legal obligations to safeguard the life, health and
well-being of Chakmas residing in the State without
being inhibited by local politics. Besides, by refusing to
forward their applications, the Chakmas are denied
rights, constitutional and statutory, to be considered
for being registered as citizens of India.”
4. Accordingly, direction was issued to the State of
Arunachal Pradesh to ensure that life and liberty of
Chakmas residing in the State was protected against any
attempt to evict them by organized groups such as
AAPSU and their applications could be forwarded to the
Central Government.
5. Case of the petitioners, further is that the
JUDGMENT
application of the State of Arunachal Pradesh for
modification and Writ Petition (C) No.593 of 1997 filed by
an organization of tribals of Arunachal Pradesh against
the judgment of this Court was also dismissed. Another
writ petition being Writ Petition No.13 of 1998 against
th
the judgment of this Court was dismissed on 9
December, 2002. Thereafter applications were filed for
citizenship but the same were not acted upon. The
Page 6 of 18
Page 6
Writ Petition No.510 of 2007
Election Commission of India in the light of judgment of
rd
this Court passed orders dated 3 March, 2004 declaring
th
the resolution dated 14 May, 2003 passed by the State
of Arunachal Pradesh against facilities to the petitioners
to be unconstitutional but the authorities of the State of
Arunachal Pradesh had not forwarded the applications as
required under Rule 9 of the Citizenship Rules to the
Central Government.
6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Union of
India stating that the applications directly received by
the Ministry of Home Affairs were forwarded to the
Government of Arunachal Pradesh which had not been
returned except few applications with negative
recommendations. The said applications were returned
back to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Ministry
JUDGMENT
of Home Affairs had advised the Government of
Arunachal Pradesh to act in compliance with the
judgment of this Court.
7. The stand of the State of Arunachal Pradesh is that
there was no threat to the life and liberty of the Chakmas
and Hajong refugees. After receiving the judgment of
this Court, the judgment was circulated to Inspector
General of Police, Deputy Commissioners of the
Page 7 of 18
Page 7
Writ Petition No.510 of 2007
concerned Districts and Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests. The State Government was fully bound by the
direction of this Court and had taken all necessary steps
to comply with the same. The State of Arunachal
Pradesh had received 4382 applications. Though the
popular sentiment of the indigenous tribals was different,
the State of Arunachal Pradesh was honouring the order
of this Court. It is further stated that Chakmas and
Hajong tribes were settled in NEFA from 1964 to 1969
when there were no elected bodies in the State of
Arunachal Pradesh. The laws applicable in the State of
Arunachal Pradesh like the Government of India Act,
1870, the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873, the
Scheduled District Act, 1874, the Assam Frontier Tract
Regulation, 1880, the Assam Frontier Forest Regulation,
JUDGMENT
1891, the Chin Hills Regulations, 1896 and the Assam
Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 (1 of
1945) were not taken into account. One thousand four
hundred ninety seven Chakmas have been included in
the electoral rolls.
8. The petitioners have filed a rejoinder affidavit
alleging that children of Chakmas and Hajongs are
denied educational facilities. They were not being
Page 8 of 18
Page 8
Writ Petition No.510 of 2007
covered by the public distribution system. They
th
presented a petition to the 10 Lok Sabha and also to
Rajya Sabha Committee on Petitions. The said
th th
Committee in its 105 Report published on 14 August,
1997 made recommendation to grant Indian Citizenship
to the Chakmas but the said recommendation has not
been acted upon. The recommendation is as follows :
“ 42. The Committee, therefore,
recommends that the Chakmas of
Arunachal Pradesh who came there prior to
25.3.1971 be granted Indian citizenship.
The Committee also recommends that those
Chakmas who have been born in India
should also be considered for Indian
citizenship. The Committee further
recommends that the fate of those
Chakmas who came to the State after
25.3.1971 be discussed and decided by the
Central Government and State Government
Jointly. The Committees also recommends
that all the old applications of Chakmas for
citizenship which have either been rejected
or withheld by Deputy Commissioners or
the State Deputy Commissioner or the State
Government continue to block the
forwarding of such applications to Central
Government, the Central Government may
consider to incorporate necessary provision
in the Rules (or the Act it so required)
whereby it could directly receive, consider
and decide the application for citizenship in
the 23 case of Chakmas of Arunachal
Pradesh. The Committee also recommends
that Chakmas be also considered for
granting them the status of Scheduled
Tribes at the time of granting the
citizenship. The Committee would like to
earnestly urge upon the Central
Government and State Government to
ensure that until amicable solution is
arrived at, the Chakmas are allowed to stay
JUDGMENT
Page 9 of 18
Page 9
Writ Petition No.510 of 2007
in Arunachal Pradesh with full protection
and safety, honour and dignity”.
9. When the matter came up for hearing before this
st
Court on 1 August, 2012, the following order was
passed :-
“Mr. B. Bhattacharyya, learned Additional
Solicitor General for respondent No.
5, and Mr. Anil Shrivastav, learned
counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, pray
for some time to seek instructions and
also to ensure that the controversy raised
in the Writ Petition is resolved at the
hands of the Central Government and
the State Government at the earliest.”
th
10. Again on 28 August, 2012, following order was
passed :
“Mr. B. Bhattacharyya, learned Additional
Solicitor General appearing for the
respondent No. 5 - Union of India,
submits that all 4637 applications for
grant of citizenship in respect of
Chakmas received in the Ministry of
Home Affairs, Government of India
have been returned to the State
Government as the applications were
not made to the appropriate authority
in prescribed form and were also
not accompanied with the
recommendations of the State
Government as per statutory
requirement.
JUDGMENT
Having regard to the decision of
this Court in National Human Rights
Commission Vs. State of Arunachal
Pradesh and Another, (1996) 1 SCC 742,
and the directions contained therein,
we direct the State of Arunachal Pradesh
to submit a comprehensive
report/affidavit to this Court in respect
of 4637 applications returned by the
Page 10 of 18
Page 10
Writ Petition No.510 of 2007
Central Government to the State
Government on the following aspects in
respect of each application :-
(i) Whether the conditions laid
down in the relevant clauses of
Section 5 of the Citizenship Act,
1955 (for short, 'Act') are
satisfied;
(ii) Whether the applicant has an
intention to make India his
permanent home;
(iii) Whether the applicant has signed
oath of allegiance as specified in
the Second Schedule to the Act;
and
(iv) Whether the applicant is of good
character and is otherwise a fit
and proper person to be
registered as a citizen of India.
The above report/affidavit shall be
submitted by the State of Arunachal
Pradesh to this Court through the
Secretary (Political), Government of
Arunachal Pradesh within two months
from today.
A copy of the report/affidavit shall
be given to the Advocate-on-Record for
the petitioners well in advance.”
JUDGMENT
th
11. On 20 January, 2014, this Court passed the
following Order:
“List the matter on 5th May, 2014, so as
to enable the Joint High Powered
Committee constituted vide
Government of India's Order
No.13/2/2010-NE-II dated 10/08/2010.
to place on record the progress made
in the matter.
We are sure that the Committee
would make all efforts so that the work
entrusted to it is concluded preferably
before the next date of hearing.”
Page 11 of 18
Page 11
Writ Petition No.510 of 2007
nd
12. Additional Affidavit dated 2 January, 2013 was
filed by the State of Arunachal Pradesh stating that the
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (N.E.
Division) has constituted a committee under the
Chairmanship of Joint Secretary (N.E.), Ministry of Home
th
Affairs on 10 August, 2010 to examine various issues
relating to settlement of Chakmas/Hajongs in Arunachal
Pradesh including the possibility of granting Indian
citizenship to eligible Chakmas/ Hajongs. The Committee
th
has held its sitting on 9 January, 2012 and taken certain
decisions. Thus, the issue was not being ignored though
there was no delay in the matter.
13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
JUDGMENT
their rights have been duly acknowledged by this Court
in NHRC case (supra). Still, their legitimate right of
citizenship has not so far materialized. They have been
settled after a conscious decision at the highest level of
the Government of India. They could not be treated as
foreigners. He has placed reliance on a judgment of the
th
Gauhati High Court dated 19 March, 2013 in PIL
No.52 of 2010 titled “All Arunachal Pradesh
Page 12 of 18
Page 12
Writ Petition No.510 of 2007
Students Union (AAPSU) vs. The Election
Commission of India” dismissing a petition filed by
AAPSU against the guidelines issued by the Election
Commission of India for revision of electoral rolls in
respect of areas where there is substantial presence of
Chakmas and Hajongs. In the said judgment, the
rd
Memorandum dated 23 March, 2005 issued by the
Election Commission of India and further guidelines
rd
dated 3 October, 2007 for revision of electoral rolls with
st
reference to 1 January, 2007 as qualifying date are also
referred to. The objection against the Chakmas being
treated as ordinary residents of Arunachal Pradesh in
absence of possession of valid Inner Line Passes was
also considered. The Election Commission of India
supported its guidelines with guidelines with reference to
JUDGMENT
th
a judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 28
September, 2000 in W.P. No.886 of 2000 (Peoples
Union for Civil Liberties vs. Election Commission of
India & Ors.)
15. In the judgment of the Gauhati High Court, it was
noted that in contradiction to those unwanted illegal
migrants who sneak into the country, the Chakmas
migrated to India on account of their displacement and
Page 13 of 18
Page 13
Writ Petition No.510 of 2007
the Government of India agreed to grant them
citizenship. In these circumstances, the guidelines of the
Government of India were held to be justified and did not
warrant any requirement of Inner Line permit. The
relevant observations are :
“[18] ………. Having regard to the facts
and circumstances which have been also
highlighted by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as referred to above in NRHC case,
we are of the view that these additional
guidelines, having been issued in the
peculiar circumstances obtaining, cannot
be held to be discriminatory.
Further, in view of the policy
decision taken by the Government of
India to settle the Chakma refugees in
different States and also in Arunachal
Pradesh in consultation with the
authorities of the Arunachal Pradesh, and
also to confer Indian citizenship, the
contention of the petitioners that the
aforesaid guidelines have the effect of
violating the provisions of law in terms of
lack of Inner Line Permit or violation of
provisions of section 13 of the
Registration of Births and Deaths Act,
1969 does not hold water. We are of the
view that once a decision had been taken
to settle these Chakma refugees in
Arunachal Pradesh in consultation with
the authorities of Arunachal Pradesh, they
would become residents of Arunachal
Pradesh and would not require the Inner
Line Permit/Pass. Otherwise also, once
they have been allowed to settle in
Arunachal Pradesh, it would be deemed
that such permits had been granted to
them and in our considered opinion, any
other view would negate and defeat the
policy decision taken by the Government
of India in consultation with the Arunachal
Pradesh authorities to settle these
Chakmas in Arunachal Pradesh.
JUDGMENT
Page 14 of 18
Page 14
Writ Petition No.510 of 2007
Similarly, as regards, the other
contention of the petitioners that the
guidelines would contravene the
provisions of section 13 of the
Registration of Births and Deaths Act,
1969 also cannot be accepted. It may be
noted that the Chakmas had taken refuge
in this country under distress and trying
circumstances after having been
uprooted from their hearth and homes
and made to flee to avoid persecution.
Further, later on, after having allowed to
settle in Arunachal Pradesh, they had
faced difficulties and harassments from
the neighbouring local populace which
had been taken note of by the Supreme
Court in NHRC case as mentioned above.
Therefore, issuing of the additional
guidelines for the purpose of verification
of the birth of the claimants on the basis
of other credible materials for the
purpose of enrolment in the electoral rolls
where these Chakmas had been officially
settled cannot be interfered with merely
on the technical ground that certain
provisions of Registration of Births and
Deaths Act, 1969 have not been strictly
complied with, if the evidences are
otherwise credible and trustworthy.
We are of the view that the
additional guidelines which had been
issued by the Election Commission of
India are merely to enable those
Chakmas to enjoy such benefits as a
citizen of this Country including the right
to vote by having their names enrolled in
the electoral rolls of the concerned
constituency where they have been
settled. Once, these Chakma refugees
have been granted citizenship, they are
entitled to enjoy all the rights and
privileges that flow on becoming a citizen
of this country and further, they are
entitled to have their rights as citizens of
this country protected and safeguarded.”
JUDGMENT
Page 15 of 18
Page 15
Writ Petition No.510 of 2007
16. We find merit in the contention of the petitioners. It
stands acknowledged by this Court on the basis of stand
of the Government of India that the Chakmas have a
right to be granted citizenship subject to the procedure
being followed. It also stands recognized by judicial
decisions that they cannot be required to obtain any
Inner Line permit as they are settled in the State of
Arunachal Pradesh.
17. In State of Arunachal Pradesh vs. Khudiram
2
Chakma , this Court noted the ancient history of
Arunachal Pradesh as follows :
“ 41. The history of the mountainous and multitribal
north-east frontier region which is now known as
Arunachal Pradesh ascends for hundreds of years
into the mists of tradition and mythology. According
to Pauranic legend, Rukmini, the daughter of King
Bhishmak, was carried away on the eve of her
marriage by Lord Krishna himself. The ruins of the
fort at Bhalukpung are claimed by the Akas as the
original home of their ancestor Bhaluka, the
grandson of Bana Raja, who was defeated by Lord
Krishna at Tezpur (Assam). A Kalita King,
Ramachandra, driven from his kingdom in the
plains of Assam, fled to the Dafla (now Nishang)
foothills and established there his capital of
Mayapore, which is identified with the ruins on the
Ita hill. A place of great sanctity in the beautiful
lower reaches of the Lohit River, the Brahmakund,
where Parasuram opened a passage through the
hills with a single blow of his mighty axe, still
attracts the Hindu pilgrims from all over the
country.”
JUDGMENT
2
(1994) Supp. 1 SCC 615
Page 16 of 18
Page 16
Writ Petition No.510 of 2007
18. The above history shows the integral link of the
State of Arunachal Pradesh with the rest of the country
since ancient times. It is well known that the Chakmas
and Hajongs were displaced from the area which became
part of East Pakistan (now in Bangladesh) on construction
of Kaptai Dam and were allowed to be rehabilitated under
the decision of the Government of India. As earlier held
by this Court, the Delhi High Court and Gauhati High
Court, they need to be protected and their claims of
citizenship need to be considered as per applicable
procedure. They could not be discriminated against in
any manner pending formal conferment of rights of
citizenship. Their status also stands duly acknowledged
in the guidelines of the Election Commission of India.
19. Learned Additional Solicitor General fairly stated
JUDGMENT
that the Government of India will earnestly take
appropriate measures in the matter, granted some more
time.
20. Accordingly, we allow this petition and direct the
Government of India and the State of Arunachal Pradesh
to finalise the conferment of citizenship rights on eligible
Chakmas and Hajongs and also to ensure compliance of
directions in judicial decisions referred to in earlier part of
Page 17 of 18
Page 17
Writ Petition No.510 of 2007
this order for protection of their life and liberty and
against their discrimination in any manner. The exercise
may be completed at the earliest preferably within three
months from today.
.…………………………….J.
[ ANIL R. DAVE ]
……………………………..J.
[ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]
NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 17, 2015
JUDGMENT
Page 18 of 18
Page 18