Supreme Court of India
KARMA DORJEE & ORSversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS
- Citation
- 2016 INSC 1123
- Decided
- 14 December 2016
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- T S THAKUR
Holding
The Court held that while the State has a non‑negotiable duty to prevent racial discrimination, it cannot compel legislative amendment but may direct the Union to establish a monitoring committee with specified composition and powers to oversee implementation of the Bezbaruah Committee’s recommendations.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of advocates, filed a public‑interest writ under Article 32 seeking a court‑directed mechanism to curb racial discrimination against citizens from India's North‑Eastern states. Citing several media‑reported incidents and invoking Articles 15, 32 and 51A(e) of the Constitution, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act and the IPC, they asked for mandamus to compel the Union and State governments to formulate comprehensive redressal measures, set up a special investigation team in Delhi, and launch sensitisation programmes. The Court observed that the Union had already constituted the Bezbaruah Committee, accepted its immediate‑measure recommendations, and was monitoring implementation through advisories and police initiatives. While the Court held that it could not issue a mandamus directing amendment of the IPC, it directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to constitute a monitoring committee comprising the Joint Secretary (North‑East) and two other members (one a public figure) with specific functions to oversee implementation of the Bezbaruah Committee’s recommendations and to address grievances. The writ petitions were consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Union and State governments are constitutionally and internationally obligated to devise a mechanism to prevent racial discrimination against North‑Eastern citizens.
- Whether the Court can issue a mandamus directing amendment of the Indian Penal Code to introduce new provisions on racial offences.
- Whether the Court can direct the formation of a special investigation team in Delhi to probe specific incidents.
- Whether existing statutory provisions (IPC sections 153A, 153B, 505(2)) are sufficient to address racial discrimination.
- Whether the Court may order the creation of a monitoring committee with prescribed composition and functions.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 15, s. Article 32, s. Article 51A(e)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 153A, s. 153B, s. 505(2)
- International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)
- Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
Subjects
racial discriminationNorth‑Eastern Indiapublic interest litigationmandamusmonitoring committeehuman rightsArticle 15Protection of Human Rights ActIPC 153ACERD
Judgment
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 968
A KARMA DORJEE & ORS
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No.103 of20l4)
B DECEMBER 14, 2016
[T. S. THAKUR, CJI, DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD
AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.]
Public Interest Litigation - Human rights - Racial
discrimination - Writ petition seeking mandamus to the Union
c Government and the States to formulate a mechanism to deal with
racial atrocities against people from the North-Eastern States -
Held: Monitoring of instances of racial discrimination involving -
citizens from the north-eastern States involves a111ong other things
issues pertaining to law enforcement - However, involvement of
D law enforcement machinery alone not sufficient to resolve the
problem- Mind-sets have to be changed - Sensitivity and inclusion
have to be fostered -- The Govern111ents, both at the Centre and the
States have a non-negotiable obligation to take positive steps to
give effect to India s co111111itment to racial equality - In order to
enhance a sense of security and inclusion, Union Government in
E
the Ministry of Home Affairs to take proactive steps to monitor the
redressal of issues pertaining to racial discrimination faced by
citizens from the North-east --'For that purpose, a regular exercise
of monitoring and redressal be carried out by a Committee-consisting
of (i) Joint Secretary (North-east), MHA; and (ii) tll'o other members,
F nominated by the Union Government (one of whom should be a·
public figure) - Functions to be performed by the Committee,
enumerated - Constitution of India - Arts. 15, 32 and 51A(e) -
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination - Arts.2 and 5 - Protection of Human Rights Act,
1993 - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.153A, 153B and 505(2).
G
The petitioners are Advocates who initiated these proceedings in
public interest for guidelines to be set down to curb acts of discrimination
prevalent in society against persons from the north-eastern States. The
petitioners alluded to various factual instances reported in media since
2009, not with a view to seeking the intervention of the court in specific
H
968
KARMA DORJEE & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 969
cases (the law having been set into motion to deal with such instances of A
hate crime) but to establish the need for the issuance of guidelines to
bring about a systemic approach to addressing the problem .
. Disposing of the writ petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In order to deal with the concerns of persons
hailing from the north-eastern States and residing in different B
parts of the country, particularly in the metropolitan cities, the
Union Government constituted a Committee chaired by Shri M
P Bezbaruah, a member of the North-eastern Council. The
Committee submitted its report to the Union Ministry of Home
Affairs on 11 July 2014. An effective mechanism has been c
suggested by the Bezbaruah Committee. This should commend
·itself once the Union government has accepted the
recommendations on immediate ·measures. [Para 4j[975-C, D;
977-A-B]
1.2 The Union Ministry of Home Affairs has stated that a D
proposal for amending the Indian Penal Code by the insertion of
two new provisions- Section i53C and Section 509A- is under
examination. These amendments will deal with offences involving ·
racial matters. Whether the law should be amended is for the
Union government to decide in its considered assessment of_ the
situation, the nature of the problem and the efficacy of existing E
provisions. A mandamus to legislate cannot be issued. [Para
5](977-C; 979-E-F)
2.1 The monitoring of instances of racial discrimination
involving citizens from the north-eastern States involves among
0th.er things issues pertaining to law enforcement. However, the F
involvement of the law enforcement machinery alone is not
sufficient to resolve the problem. Mind-sets .have to be changed
including in the universities, colleges and educational institutions,
places of work and in society. Sen.sitivity and inclusion have to
be fostered. In order to achieve this, greater awareness of the G
history and the rich cultural traditions of the north-east is required
to be inculcated. The problems faced by persons from the north-
east traverse a whole range of issues, from the mundane issues
of daily life to matters of education, employment, social security
and the fundamental right to live in dignity. The Governments,
H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 9,S.C.R.
A both at the Centre and the States have a noit-negotfable obligation .
to take positive steps to give. effect to India's commitment to
racial equality. This commitment is embodied in Constitutional
rights, fundamental duties, statutor-y provisions and in the
international obligations which have been assumed by India. [Para
8)[980-G-H; 981-A-B] . ·
B
2.2 In order to enhance a sense of security and inclusion,
the Union Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs should
take proactive steps to monitor the redressal· of issues pertaining
to racial discrimination faced by citizens of the nation drawn from
the north-east. For that purpose, a regular exercise of monitoring
c and redressal should be carried ·out by a Committee consisting
.'of (i) Joint Secretary (North-east), Ministry of Home Affairs; and·
(ii) Two other members to be nominated by the Union
Government (one of whom should be a public figure). The.
Committee shall carry out the various functions ~s enumerated.
D [Para 9][981-C-F]
Vishaka v.. State of Rajasthan 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 404
: (1997) 6 sec 2'41-relied on.
C. Masilamani Mudaliar v. idol ofSri Swaminathaswami
Swaminathaswami Thirukoil 1996 (1) SCR1068
E (1996) 8 SCC 525. - referred to.
Case Law Reference
1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 404 relied on Para 3
1996 (1) SCR 1068 referred to Para3
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
F . 103 of2014.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia
WITH •
W. P. (C) No.111 or2014:
Maninder Singh,ASG,AshokA_ggarwal,Adv. Genl., C. D. Singh,
G
Sanchar Anand, - AAGs., Suryanarayana 'Singh, Sr. Addi. AG,
U. K. Unniyal, Sr. Adv., Arunabh Chowdhury, Anupam Lal Das,
Ms. Barnali Chowdhury, Ms. Shruti Choudhary, Ms. Samten Doma
Vachungpa, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Abhishek Garg, Dhananjay Garg,
Deepak Mishra, Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj, P. K. Dey, Ms, Gunwimt Dara,
H
KARMA DORJEE & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 971
D. S. Mahra, Ms. Madhavi Divan, Ms. Nidhi_ Khanna, Naveen Sharma, A
Saurabh Mishra, B. K. Prasad, D. L. Chidanand, Sakshi Kakkar,
Ms. Avi Pandey, Sandeepan. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Baskula At_hik,
K. L. Janjani, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Varsha Rana, Ms. Ruchi Kohli,
Dr. Ashish Sharma, Nishant Ramakant Rao, Sapam Biswajit Meitei,
Naresh Kumar Gaur, Ms'.Linthoingambi Thongam,Ashok Kumar Singh,
s·
Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Kuldip Singh, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Yusuf Khan,
Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Ranjan Mukherjee,
S. Bhowmick, Z. H. Isaac Haiding, Ms. Enatoli Serna, Shuvdeep Roy,
· Sayooj Moh11ndas, Shikhar Garg, P: V. Yogeswaran, Jayesh Gaurav, Gopal.
Prasad, C. K. Sasi;·Ms. Minu Krishnan, V. G. Pragasam, S. Prabu
Ramasubramanian, K. V. Jagdishvaran; Mrs. G. Indira, c
R. Balasubrarnaniam, Dwaipayan Bhomick, Chand Qureshi;
Ms. G. Indira, Gautam Sharma, Gopal Singh; Rituraj Biswas, Ms. Varsh~
Poddar, Pawan Upadhyay, Sarvjit Pratap Singh, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,
Edward Belho,Amit Kumar Singh, K. Luikang Michael, Mrs. Hemantika ·
Wahi, Ms. Puja Singh,' Ms: Mamta Singh, A.nil K. Chopra, B. Balaji,
D
D. Mahesh Babu, Parijat Sinha, i>. V.yogeswaran, Raj iv Nanda, Samir
Ali Khan, Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, M/s. Arputham Aruna & Co.,_
Mis. Corporate Law Grc,mp, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivere9 by
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. I. The petitioners are
advocates and have initiated these proceedings under Article 32 of the E
Constitution,in public interest for guidelines tb be set'down to curb acts
of dis.crimination against persons from the north-eastern states. The
_petitioners _speakof the paradox of secular India where on the one hand,
_students from the north-eastern states-who move to other parts of the
. country in search of employment anti_ education, learn in the'processthe. F
culture and traditions of the rest of the country whHe on the other hand,
there is an absence of':reciprocating sensitivitytowards and awareness
of their concerns. They have drawn attention _to the discrimination-
prevalent in society against citizens of the nation drawn from the north-
eastern states. Such acts-of discrimination violate the fundamental
dutyunder Article 5 IA(~) which is: G .
-
"to promote.harmony and the· spirit of comin!2'1 brotherhood
amongst all the people of India transcending religious,
·linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce ·
practices derogatory to the ·dignity of women". -
H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A In order to support the plea with factual details the petitioners
have adverted to instances which were reported in the print media since
2009. On 26 October2009, a singlewoman is alleged to have been burnt
to death in the kitchen of h.er home by a stalker whose unwelcome
advances she had rebuffed. On 17 April 2012, a young student from
Maniput is alleged to have died after being assaulted in a hostel. In
B
August2012, panic is allegeq to have been created amongst a community
of persons residing in Karnataka as a result of the circulation of hostile
messages on social media. On 29 Ma:y 2013, a young Manipuri girl is
alleged to have been murdered in a rented apartment in the national
.:apital. On 25 January 2014,two young women from the north-east were
c subject to racial taunts and molestation and soon thereafter on 29 January
2014, a young student was racially ridiculed and assaulted to death in the
Lajpat Nagar area ofNew Delhi. These instances have been alluded to
not with a view to seeking the intervention of the court in specific cases
(the law has been set into motion to deal with such instances of hate
crime) but to establish the need for the issuance of guic'<>lines which will
D
bring about a systemic approach to addressing the problem.
2. The n;liefwhich the petttioners seek is a mandamus directing:
I) The Union Government as well as the States to formulate a
mechanism to deal with racial atrocities;
E II) Directing the Government of Delhi to constitute a special
investigation team headed by a former judge of this Cow1 to
investigate into atrocities committed in specific instances;
III) Directing the Union and the States to frame a proper
mechanism to deal with cases· of racial intolerance and
F discrimination; and .
IV) To all authorities to undertake programmes for inculcating
awareness and to sensitise both the public and the law enforcing
machinery.
3. Article 15 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on grounds
G
ofreligion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. The International Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) was
adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 21 December 1965.
India ratified the Convention in 1968. The Convention has come into
force on 4 January 1969. A1ticle 2 of the Convention imposes the following
H
KARMA DORJEE & ORS v. UNION QF INDIA AND ORS 973
[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
obligation on the States Parties: A
"Article 2
I. States Parties· condemn ·racial discrimination and
undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without
delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its
forms and promoting understanding among all races, and, B
to this end: (a) Each State Party undertakes to engage in
no act or practice of racial discrimination against persons,
groups of persons or institutions and to ensure that all public
authorities and public institutions, national and local, shall
act in conformity with this obligation; c
(b) Each State Party undertakes not to sponsor, defend or
support racial discrimination by any persons or
organizations;
( c) Each State Party shall _take effective measures to
review governmental, national and local policies, and to -D
amend, rescind- or nullify any laws and regulations which
have the effect of creating or perpetuating _racial
discrimination wherever it exists;
( d) Each State Party shall prohibit and bring to an end, by
all appropriate means, including legislation as required by E
circumstances, racial discrimination by any persons, group
or organization;
( e) Each State Party undertakes to encourage, where
appropriate, integrationist multiracial organizations and
movements and other means of eliminating barriers between F
races, and to discourage anything which tends to strengthen
racial division".
Under Article 5 all states parties hav(! undertaken to prohibit and
eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms riotably, in the enjoyment of
the following rights (amongst others): G -
(i) Equal treatment in the administration ofjustice;
(ii)Right to security of person; ·
.(iii) Political rights including participation in elections;
.I
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A (iv) Civil rights;
(v) Right to freedom of movement and residence;
- ..
(vi) Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and to ·
express one's opinion;
B (vii) Economic, social and cultural rights;
(viii) Right to work and to free choice of employment; and
. .
(ix) Right of housing, public health, medical care, social security,
education and training and access to.any public place.
· India being a signatory to the Convention is duty bound to enforce
c its obligations under the. law. The provisions of the Convention are of
significance while construing the nature and ambi_t of the constitutional
guarantee contained in Article 15 of the Constituti_on. India's obligations
un~er an international convention designed to protect fundamental human
rights must be read into the constitutional guarantee against racial
D discrimination. A consensus in the international community of nations, in
which lndia is a vibrant participant, must infuse the content of our own
constitutional guarantees. As this Court held in Vishaka v. State of
Rajasthan 1 :
" ... The international conventions and norms are to be read
E into them in the absence of enacted domestic law occupying
the field when there is no inconsistency between them. It
is now an accepted rule ofjudicial construction that regard
must be had to international conventions and norms for
construing domestic law when there is no inconsistency
between them and there is a void in the domestic law".
F
fLd at pa_ge 2511
· [See also C Masilamani Mudaliar v. Idol of Sri
$waminathaswami Swaminathaswami T~irukoiF]
The provisions of domestic legislation in India in fact buttress and
G support the obligations which have been assumed by the country under
CERD. The Protection of Human Rights Act; 1993 defines the
expression "International Covenants" thus:
"l [(f) "International Covenants" means the International
1
(1997) 6 sec 241
H 2
(1996) 8 sec 525 at paragraphs 1?.to 21
KARMA DORJEE & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 975
[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International A
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted
by the General Assembly of the United Nations on the J 6•h
December, 1966 and such other Covenant or Convention
adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations as
the Central Government may, by notification, specify;]" B -
The Union Government has issued. a standing order dated 21
September 2010 3 , specifying CERD "as an international covenant in its
application to the protection of human rights in India".
4. In order to deal with the concerns of persons hailing from the
north-eastern states and residing in different parts of the country, c
particularly inthe metropolitan cities, the Union Government constituted
a Committee on 5 February 2014. The Committee was chaired by Shri
M PBezbaruah, a member of the North_:-eastern Council. After consulting
various stake holders, the Committee submitted its report to the Union
Ministry of Home Affairs on 11July2014. The Committee categorised
its recommendations into three categories : D
(a) immediate measures which need to be implemented within six
months to one year;
(b) short term measures which need to be implemented within a
period of one to one and a half years; and E
( c) long term measures which need to be implemented within a
period of one and a half to two ye.ars.
The Union Government has stated in its counter affidavit dated
15 October 2015 filed in these proceedings that the recommendations
made by the Committee with regard to immediate measures have been F
accepted and action has been taken to implemen.t the rec.ommendatfons
so as to address the concerns of citizens from the north-eastern states
residing in New Delhi and in other parts of the country. The
recommendations of the Bezbaruah Committee
.
on immediate measures
.
traverse the following areas :
G
(i). Legal measures, including either a_new statutory provision or
·an amendment of existing law;
(ii). Facilities for legal assista_nce;
(iii). Strengthening oflaw enforcement agencies; H
976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20 I 6] 9 S.C.R.
A (iv). Special police initiatives including proactive regional action;
(v). Utilising the bonding power of sports;
(vi). Educating the people about the north-east;
(vii). Greaterfocus on the north-east in the Information and
B Broadcasting media;
(viii). Appoint_ment of nodal officers by each state government;
and
(ix). Accommodation related issues including problems of rent.
c Implementation of the recommendations has been suggested by
the report of the Committee as follows:
"11.12 Implementation
11.12.1 An effective monitoring mechanism therefore should
D be built into the system. We recommend that a high level
. committee should be set up under the Home Ministry with
representatives of Ministry ofDoNER, Ministry_ofHome
Affairs, Resident Commissioners, Delhi Police and suitable
representation from the Civil Society Organizations working
for the concerns of the North East people.
E
11.12.2 TheJCommittee should have powers to ensure
implementation and the powers and functions should be
clearly laid down. The powers given to the Committee
should also enable it to fix accountability and the concerned
Ministries should act upon the decisions of the Committee
F within a specified time. The committee should meet at least
once a quarter and review the implementation of the many
initiatives.
11.12.3 The nodal officer from police proposed to be placed
in the MHA should be the convener and the member
G secretary of the committee.
11.12:-4 The results of review by the committee should be
uploaded in the network ofNorth East Police Cell and later
on should be linked to be North East network recommended
by us".
H
KARMA DORJEE & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 977
[DR,. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
An effective monitoring mechanism has been suggested by the A
Bezbaruah Committee. This should commend itself once the Union
government has accepted the recommendations on· immediate
measures.The Bezbaruah Committee report should not like innumerable
instances of its ilk, languish in dusty shelves oflong forgotten archives.
The acceptance by the Union government is a statement of what it calls
B
a "zero tolerance" policy towards discrimination against Indian citizens
hailing from the north-east. The court as a protector of human rights is
within jurisdiction in ensuring that this assurance translates into reality.
5. The Union Ministry of Home Affairs has stated before the
Court both in its initial counter as well as. in an additional affidavit filed
on 20 September 2016 that a proposal for amending the Indian Penal
c
Code by the insertion of two new provisions - Section 15 3C and SectiOn
509 A- is under examination. These amendments will deal with offences
involving racial matters. Sections l 53A, l 53B and 505(2) which already
exist as a part of the Indian Penal Code provide as follows:
"153A promoting enmity between different groups on D
ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence,
language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to
maintenance of harmony.- (I) Whoever-
(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by
visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts E
to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth,
residence, language, caste or community or· any other
ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred
or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or
regional groups or castes or communities, or F
(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance
ofhannony between different religious, racial, language or
regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs
or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity,
(c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar G
activity intending that the participants in such activity shall
use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing
it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or
be trained to use cdminal force or violence, or pai1icipates·
in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal
H
978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the
participants in such activity will use or be trained to use
'criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial,
language or regional group or caste or community and such
activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to
cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst
B.
members of such religious, racial, language or regional group
or caste or community,shall be punished with imprisonment
which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Offence committed in place of worship, etc.-
(2)Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section
c (I) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in
the perfonnance ofreligious worship or religious ceremonies,
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to
five years and shall also be liable to fine.]
153B.
D Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national
integration.
(I) Whoever, by words either spoken or written or by signs
or by visible representations or otherwise,-
(a) makes or publishes any imputation that any class of
E
persons cannot, by reason of their being members of any
religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or
community, bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution
of India as by law established or uphold the sovereignty
and integrity oflndia, or
F (b) asserts, counsels, advises, propagates or publishes that
any class of persons by reason of their being members of
any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste·or
community be denied, or deprived of their rights as citizens
. oflndia, ~r
G (c) makes or publishes any assertion, counsel, plea or
appeal concerning the obligation of any class of persons,
by reason of their being members of any religious, racial,
language or regional group or caste or community, and such
assertion, counsel, plea or appeal causes or is 1ikely to cause
disharmony or feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will between
H
KARMA DORJEE & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 979
[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
such members and other persons, shall be punished with A
imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine,
or with both.
(2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section
(I), in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in
the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, B
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to
five years and shall also be liable to fine.
505. Statements conducing public mischief. (2)
Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or
ill-will between classes.-Whoever makes, publishes or c
circulates any statement or report containing rumour or
alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is
likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race,
place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or
any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or
ill-will between different religious, racial, language or D
regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished
with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with
fine, or with both."
Since the subject falls in the Concurrent List of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution wide consultations with the state governments E
are being undertaken before bringing out any amendments to the Jaw.
Whether the Jaw should be amended is for the Union government to
decide in its considered assessment of the situation, the nature of the
problem and the efficacy of existing provisions. A mandamus to legislate
cannot be issued. F
6. The implementation of the recommendations of the Bezbaruah
Committee is being mon'itored by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs
and the last review meeting was held on 12 May 2016.The Court has
been apprised of the fact that the Union Ministry of Home Affairs has
issued several advisories to the state governments. These advisories
G
include advisories dated I 0/14 May 2012, 3 June 2013, 5 February 2014,
6 February 2014, 12 October 2015 and 23 May 2016. These advisories
relate to various aspects and are inte11ded to deai with discrimination
and racial profiling faced by Indian citizens hailing from north-eastern
states. The advisories, inter alia, deal with compulsory registration of
H
980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A First Information Reports under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. when the
information makes out a cognizable offence and in regard to the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act,
2015.
7. The Union Government has in its counter affidavit also indicated
B the steps which have been taken by the Delhi Police to inculcate a sense
of security amongst persons from the north-east. During the course of
the hearing on 17 October 2016 this Court was of the view that the
Ministry of Home Affairs may initially monitor the steps being taken
particularly by the Delhi Police so that the model can be replicated in
other parts of the country. In pursuance of these obseryations, a further
c affidavit has been filed on 26 October 2016 on behalfofthe Union Ministry
of Home Affairs stating that an officer of the rank of Additional
Commissioner of Police hailing from the north-east has been designated
to be in-charge of a special police unit from the north-eastern region.
Similarly, an officer of the rank of Joint Commissioner of Police/I GP has
D been appointed as nodal officer for dealing with issues pertaining to the
north-eastern state$. Separate district Additional Commissioners of Police
and DCPs have been appointed as nodal officers to regularly interact
with citizens from the north-east residing in their districts. Steps have
been taken for sensitising the police force and special recruitment drives
have been m1dertaken for appointment of citizens from the north-eastern
E states. Moreover, for Delhi a police officer of the rank of Special
Commissioner will supervise the functioning of the Delhi Police as regards
problems faced by the people of the north-eastern region. A special
helpline (1093) has been introduced on 14 February 2014. A Facebook
page - "Delhi Police for North-east Folks" was launched on 9 May
F 2014 and till 15 October 2016, was visited by over 1.50 crore p_eople. A
data bank on crimes has been unveiled in February 2014.Representatives
have been appointed from students and volunteers. Such a mechanism
shall be monitored by the Ministry of Home Affairs and based on the
experiencegained, it will be replicated in other metropolitan cities.
G 8. The monitoring of instances of racial discrimination involving
citizens from the north-eastern states involves among other things issues
pertaining to law enforcement. However, the involvement of the law
enforcement machinery is alone not sufficient to resolve the problem.
Mind-sets have to be changed including in the universities, colleges and
educational institutions, places of work and in society. Sensitivity and
H
KARMA DORJEE & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 981
[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
inclusion have to be fostered. In order to achieve this, greater awareness - A
. of the history and the rich cultural traditions of the north-east is required
to be inculcated. The problems faced by persons from the north-east
traverse a whole range of issues, from the mundane issues of daily life
to matters of education, employment, social security and the fundamental
right to live in dignity. The Governments, both at the centre and the
B
states have a non-negotiable obligation to take positive steps to give
effect to India's commitment to racial equality. This commitment is
embodied.in constitutional rights, fundamental duties, statutoryprovisions
and in the international obligations which have been assumed by India.
9. We are of the view that in order to enhance a sense of security
and inclusion, the Union Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs
c
should take proactive steps to monitor the redressal of issues pertaining
to racial discrimination faced by citizens of the nation drawn from the
north-east. For that purpose, a regular exercise of monitoring and
redressal should be carried out by a Committee consisting of the following
members: D
I Joint Secretary (North-east), Ministry of Home Affairs; and
2 Two other members to be nominated by the Union
Government (one of whom should be a public figure).
The work of the Committee should be widely publicised in the E
electronic and print media, including in the north eastern states. The
Committee should be accessible to grievances, suggestions and
complaints.
The Committee should meet periodically and preferably at monthly
intervals to monitor the redressal of all such grievances including the F
implementation of the recommendations of the Bezbaruah Committee,
to the extent to which they have been accepted by the Union
Government. The Committee shall carry out the following functions:
a) to monitor, oversee, pursue and review the implementation of
the MP Bezbaruah Committee Report dated 11.07.2014; G
b) to monitor the initiatives taken by the Government to curb and
deal with the incidents of racial discrimination/racial atrocities/racial
violence;
c) to monitor action in respect of incidents of racial discrimination/
H
982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A racial atrocities/racial violence, suggest measures and ensure strict action;
d) to receive, consider and entertain complaints from individuals
and groups of individuals who claim to be victims ofracial abuse/racial
atrocities/racial violence/racial discrimination and forward the same to
the National Human Rights Commission and/or the State Human Rights
B Commissions and/or to the jurisdictional Police Station as the case may
be for enquiry and necessary action;
e) to issue necessary directions including calling for reports on
incidents of racial discrimination/racial atrocities/racial violence from the
State Governments/Union Territories.
c A decision may also be taken by the Union government on whether
any of the other recommendations should be accepted.
I 0. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
D Divya Pandey Writ Petitions disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "racial discrimination"Sign in to search