National Human Rights Commission v. the State of Arunachal Pradesh

Updated: Oct 3, 2021

Case Name - National Human Rights Commission v. the State of Arunachal Pradesh

Case Citation - 1996 AIR 1234, 1996 SCC (1) 742

Relevant Acts and Sections -

Parties Involved -

Petitioner - National Human Rights Commission
First Respondent - State of Arunachal Pradesh
Second Respondent - The Union of India

Facts

A large number of Chakmas were evacuated from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) by the Kaptai Hydel Power Project in 1964 and hid in Assam and Tripura, many of whom became Indian citizens in due course.
At the request of the State Government, about 4,012 Chakmas were settled in parts of the NEFA (North-East Frontier Agency - now Arunachal Pradesh) with some of the lands they had been given in consultation with local tries.
Chakmas have also been provided with renewal assistance @ Rs.4,200 / family by the Government of India.
The current number of Chakmas in Arunachal Pradesh can be estimated at about 65,000.
Chakmas parties made representations for citizenship under Section 5 (1) (a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 before the Deputy Commissioner, but no retaliation was made on its behalf. Lack of retaliation was illustrated to the petitioner.
Relations between Arunachal Pradesh and Chakmas have deteriorated into a series of protests over the recent evictions.
On September 9, 1994, the People’s Union for Civil Rights issued letters to the Chief Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh, and the Secretary of Home Affairs, Government of India informing the National Human Rights Commission (to be called the NHRC) on the matter.
On September 30, 1994, the Secretary-General faxed a reply confirming that adequate police protection was provided to the Chakmas.
The Chakmas Citizens' Rights Committee (later to be called the CCRC), together with the NHRC, submitted submissions on October 15, 1994, containing a press report to The Telegraph dated August 26, 1994.
The media report stated that the All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union (to be called AAPSU) issued "quit notices" to all alleged immigrants, including Chakmas, to leave the State on September 30, 1995, for failing to comply with threats of force.
On October 28, 1994, the NHRC issued notices to the first and second respondents seeking their reports on the matter.
On November 22, 1994, a letter was sent to the applicant, by the Department of Home Affairs confirming his intention to grant citizenship to Chakmas.
On December 7, 1994, the first and second responders were notified by the NHRC of an assessment of the steps they had taken to protect Chakmas. However, this directive was ignored until September 25, 1995, when the first respondent asked for four weeks to file a supplementary report, but did not comply with its deadline.
Urgent requests were sent by the CCRC to the NHRC on October 12 and October 28, 1995, in response to the immediate threat to the lives of the Chakmas.
On October 29, 1995, the first impression was recorded by the NHRC that the officials of the first respondent were cooperating with AAPSU with the same view of expelling the Chakmas from the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
As a result of doubts about its ability to stabilize Chakmas in its area and the delay of the first respondent, the NHRC decided to go to Court.

Issues

That the expulsion of a foreign group of people like Chakama violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the process for registration and citizenship is done according to the rules

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Chakmas, based largely in the state of Arunachal Pradesh, are persecuted by sections of the citizens of the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
The first respondent had always delayed the matter regarding the safety of the Chakmas.

Respondent's Arguments

According to the Union of India, the second respondent, the first respondent has been expressing skepticism over the issue of citizenship of Chakmas and preventing the second respondent from considering the matter by not submitting applications filed by Chakmas and their own nationality reports as required by Rule 9 of the Citizenship Rules, 1955.
The Union of India considered the issue of nationality and commended the first respondent to take all necessary steps to provide security at Chakmas.
The first respondent claims that the allegations of human rights abuses are wrong and that he has made real efforts to provide services, and is doing everything in his power to protect the lives and property of Chakmas.
It has also been argued that the issue of citizenship of Chakmas has been taken entirely by the “Court in State of Arunachal Pradesh V. Khudiram Chakmas(1994 Supp. (1) SCC 615)” and that Chakmas are foreigners and have no right to the protection of fundamental rights other than Article 21.
As an obligation on the stand taken by the second respondent, the Union of India, the first respondent denied that the Union of India had voluntarily sent CRPF Forces but on the basis of a letter dated 20.09.1994 requested assistance.
It claims that the deaths of some celebrities were not due to economic sanctions imposed by AAPSU but as a result of the malaria epidemic.
The first respondent made the following point regarding the issue of the granting of Chakassian citizenship:

“It is submitted that under the Citizensip Act, 1955 and the Rules made thereunder a specific procedure is provided for forwarding the application for grant of citizenship. According to that after receiving the application, the DC of the area makes necessary enquiries about the antecedents of the applicant and after getting a satisfactory report forwards the case to the State Government which in turn forwards it to the Central Government. It is submitted that on enquiry if the report is adverse the DC would not forward it further. It is submitted that the applications, if any, made in this regard have already been disposed of after necessary enquiry. There is no application pending before the DC.”

Rationale

Our Country is governed by the Rule of Law.
Our Constitution gives rights to everyone and others gain citizenship and everyone has the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law.
For the above reasons, no one shall be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the law.
The State has a duty to protect the lives and personal freedoms of individuals, citizens or not, and no organization or group of persons, such as AAPSU, shall have the right to threaten Chakmas to leave the State and use force if it fails to do so.
No State Government may allow a group of people to threaten another party as it is the duty to remain impartial and to protect the threatened group, failing which, failing to fulfill its Legal and Constitutional obligations. A group of people threatening to be prosecuted in accordance with the law.
Due to the long stay of the Chakmas who migrate to those born in the State, they may claim citizenship under Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and maybe registered as an Indian citizen if they meet this requirement.
The procedure to be followed for such registration is set out in section two of the National Laws, 1956. In terms of these laws, an application for registration must be made in the prescribed manner, guaranteed, to the Collector who resides within his or her jurisdiction. After such applications have been received, the authority to register a person as an Indian citizen is vested in a police officer summoned under Rule 8 of the Citizenship Rules, 1956. The Collector is expected to file all applications under Section 5 (1) (a) of the Central Government Act under Rule 9.
After reading the rules, it can be made clear that the Collector's job is to send the application to the Central Government once they have received it. However it is an accepted fact that the Deputy Collector (DC) conducts an investigation and if the report is found to be incorrect, the Deputy Collector refuses to submit the application and in doing so, the Deputy Collector fails to perform his duties and prevents the Central Government from performing its duties under the Law and Rules.
By refusing to appeal, the Chakmas are denied their constitutional and legal rights to be considered Indian citizens.

Judgment

A list of appeals was allowed, and the first and second respondents were directed by the Court, in the form of mandamus, as below -

The first respondent, the State of Arunachal Pradesh, shall ensure that the life and liberty of each individual Chakma within the State shall be protected and that any attempt to forcibly evict or expel him from the State by organized groups, such as AAPSU, will be demolished, if necessary by police or military assistance or of the police, and if additional troops are deemed necessary to carry out this directive, the first respondent shall request the second respondent, the Union of India, for such powers, and the second respondent shall provide additional powers as necessary to protect the lives and freedom of the Chakmas.
Unless it is lawful, Chakmas will not be evicted from their homes and their home life and comfort will not be denied.
The first respondent, the State of Arunachal Pradesh, will act in accordance with the law and face notice of resignation and ultimately issued by AAPSU and any other party that threatens the life and freedom of each Chakma.
An application for registration as a citizen of India by Chakama or Chakmas under Section 5 of the Act, shall be entered in a register kept for a purpose and shall be sent by the Collector or DC receiving them under applicable law, by question or without, as the case may be, to the Central Government for legal recognition; returned applications will be called back or new applications will be processed and submitted to Central Government for processing.
Although any application made for registration as a citizen of India by Chmas under Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, is still pending consideration, the person concerned or persons will not be removed or dismissed by the first respondent, State of Arunachal Pradesh, on the grounds that they are not Indian citizens. that decision.
The cost of the request, amounting to Rs. 10,000, must be paid to the applicant by the first respondent within six weeks from the date of judgment, by depositing the aforementioned amount at the NHRC office, New Delhi.
The petition will be dismissed as such.

Rule

The question of citizenship is fully regulated by the Citizenship Act, 1955 and by the Central Government which is the sole authority to grant citizenship. The State Government has no jurisdiction over this matter.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be said that under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, no person or group, citizen or citizen, can deprive the life and freedom of anybody or organization and that he or she should be protected from any such threats.

For a more simple understanding, refer to the article "Are Refugees Looked At The Same Way As Citizens In India?" by clicking the button below.

Are Refugees Looked At The Same Way As Citizens In India?