Committee for C.R. of C.A.P. & Ors. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.

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 11 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

(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 12

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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16

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 Chakma[2], this Court noted the ancient history of Arunachal Pradesh as follows:

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 18 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