Page 1

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

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 2

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

disposed of on 9th January, 19961.   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

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 3

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

their tradition and culture.

Page 4

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. 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 5

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. 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 6

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

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

the  judgment  of  this  Court  was  dismissed  on  9th

December, 2002.  Thereafter applications were filed for

citizenship  but  the  same  were  not  acted  upon.   The

Page 6 of 18

Page 7

Writ Petition No.510 of 2007

Election Commission of India in the light of judgment of

this Court passed orders dated 3rd March, 2004 declaring

the resolution dated 14th 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

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 8

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,

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 9

Writ Petition No.510 of 2007

covered  by  the  public  distribution  system.   They

presented a petition to the 10th Lok Sabha and also to

Rajya  Sabha  Committee  on  Petitions.   The  said

Committee in its 105th Report published on 14th 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

Page 9 of 18

Page 10

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

Court  on  1st 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.”

10. Again  on  28th 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.

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 11

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.”

11. On  20th 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 12

Writ Petition No.510 of 2007

12. Additional  Affidavit  dated  2nd 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

Affairs on 10th 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

has held its sitting on 9th 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

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

Gauhati  High  Court    dated  19th March,  2013  in  PIL

No.52  of  2010  titled  “All  Arunachal  Pradesh

Page 12 of 18

Page 13

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

Memorandum   dated 23rd March,  2005 issued by the

Election  Commission  of  India  and  further  guidelines

dated 3rd October, 2007 for revision of electoral rolls with

reference to 1st 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

a  judgment  of  the  Delhi  High  Court  dated  28th

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 14

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.  

Page 14 of 18

Page 15

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.”

Page 15 of 18

Page 16

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

Chakma2,   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.”

2

(1994) Supp. 1 SCC 615

Page 16 of 18

Page 17

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

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 18

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

Page 18 of 18