National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh
Supreme Court of India, 9 January 1996, 2 judges, 1996 AIR 1234, 1996 SCC (1) 742
The State must protect the life and liberty of every person, citizen or not; Arunachal Pradesh was directed to protect the Chakmas from forcible eviction and to forward their citizenship applications to the Central Government.
Facts
The National Human Rights Commission, acting under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, filed a public interest writ petition under Article 32 for about 65,000 Chakma and Hajong tribals. Chakmas displaced from East Pakistan in 1964 had been settled in what is now Arunachal Pradesh. The All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union (AAPSU) issued quit notices to them, threatened force and enforced economic blockades of their camps. The NHRC found prima facie that State officers were acting with the AAPSU and that the State delayed its replies. The Union of India supported granting the Chakmas citizenship under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, but said State officers were not forwarding their applications. The State argued that Khudiram Chakma's case had settled that the Chakmas were foreigners.
Questions before the Court
- Whether there was a threat to the life and personal liberty of the Chakmas under Article 21, and whether the State had taken adequate steps to protect them.
- Whether Khudiram Chakma's case foreclosed the Chakmas' claim to citizenship by registration under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
- Whether the Collector or Deputy Commissioner could refuse to forward the Chakmas' applications for citizenship to the Central Government.
What the Court held
- A clear and present danger to the lives and personal liberty of the Chakmas existed. Foreigners are entitled to the protection of Article 21, and the State must protect every human being, citizen or not, from threats by organised groups such as the AAPSU.
- Khudiram Chakma's case decided only a claim under Section 6-A of the Citizenship Act, the Assam Accord provision. It does not bar applications for citizenship by registration under Section 5(1)(a), a provision of general application.
- Under the Citizenship Rules only the authority under Rule 8 can register or refuse registration. The Collector must merely receive and forward applications; by refusing to forward them the Deputy Collector (DC) fails in his duty.
- Writs of mandamus issued: the State must protect the Chakmas, using para-military forces from the Union if needed; no eviction except by law; applications to be forwarded; no eviction on the ground of non-citizenship while an application is pending; costs of Rs. 10,000 to the NHRC.
Why it matters
The Court applied Article 21 to non-citizens and held that the State is bound to protect them against threats and coercion by private groups, failing which it breaches its constitutional and statutory obligations. It confined Khudiram Chakma's case to Section 6-A and held that the Collector cannot reject applications for citizenship by registration at the threshold. It is also an instance of the NHRC approaching the Supreme Court under Article 32.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“It is, therefore, clear that there exists a clear and present danger to the lives and personal liberty of the Chakmas. In Louis De Raedt v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 554] and Khudiram Chakma's case this court held that foreigners are entitled to the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
Provisions interpreted
- Article 21, Constitution
- Section 5(1)(a), Citizenship Act, 1955
- Section 6-A, Citizenship Act, 1955
- Rules 7, 8 and 9, Citizenship Rules, 1956
Case and bench
- Parties
- National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh
- Case
- Writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution (number not printed in the file)
- Decided
- 9 January 1996
- Bench
- A.M. Ahmadi, CJ, S.C. Sen
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment delivered by Ahmadi, CJI.
Questions on this case
35 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.