Holding

Chakmas are entitled to protection of life and liberty under Article 21 and the State and Union must protect them and ensure forward transmission of their citizenship applications as mandated by law.

Summary

The National Human Rights Commission filed a writ petition under Article 32 on behalf of about 65,000 Chakma refugees settled in Arunachal Pradesh, alleging persecution, quit notices and threats of eviction by the All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union. The Chakmas had applied for Indian citizenship under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, but the Deputy Collector failed to forward the applications to the Central Government as required by the Citizenship Rules. The Court examined whether non‑citizens are entitled to protection of life and liberty under Article 21 and whether the State must protect them from organized threats. It held that Article 21 applies to the Chakmas and that the State’s claim of having taken adequate steps was untenable. Accordingly, the Court directed the State to protect the Chakmas, to repel any forced eviction, and to forward all citizenship applications to the Centre, while the Union was ordered to provide additional security forces. The petition was allowed and costs were awarded to the NHRC.

Issues considered

Whether Chakmas, as non‑citizens, are entitled to protection of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Whether the State of Arunachal Pradesh is obligated to protect Chakmas from threats and forced eviction by local groups.
Whether the State must forward Chakma applications for citizenship under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act in accordance with the Citizenship Rules, 1956.
Whether the Union Government must provide additional security forces to safeguard the Chakmas.

Legislation cited

Citizenship Act, 1955s. Section 5(1)(a)
Citizenship Rules, 1956s. Rule 10, s. Rule 11, s. Rule 12, s. Rule 8, s. Rule 9, s. Rules 7
Constitution of Indias. Article 21
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993s. Section 18(2), s. Section 2(c)

Subjects

Article 21Right to lifeCitizenshipRefugeesChakmaProtection of Human Rights ActState dutyEvictionQuit noticeCentral GovernmentCitizenship ActNHRCWrit petitionArticle 32

Judgment

I

A NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
v.
STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND ANR.

JANUARY 9, 1996

B [A.M. AHMADI, CJ. ANDS. C. SEN, J.]

Constitution of India :

Article 21-Chakmas settled in Arunachal Pradesh-Persecution of by •
local people in order to force them to leave the State-Held, State is bound to
c protect life and liberty of Chakmas residing within the State--Any ettempt to
forcibly evict or drive them out shall be repelled.

Citizenship Act, 1955/Citizenship Rules, 1956 :

S.5-Rules 7, 8, 9, I 0, 1I, I 2·-Citizenship by registration-Chakmas
D settled in Arunachal Pradesh for over two decades-Applications by them for
citizenship-Held, authority to register a person as a citizen o.f India is vested
with the Central Government-Collector or Deputy Collector of area con-
cemed has merely to receive the application and.forward it to Central Govern-
ment.
E
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 :

Ss.2(c), 18(2)-National Human Rights Commission-Complaints by
Chakmas settled in Arunachal Pradesh of their persecution by local
•
people-Commission approaching Supreme Court under Article 32 of the
F Constitution seeking appropriate reliefs lo Chakmas-Directions given by
•
Court lo State and Central Governments to protect life and personal liberty of
Chakmas and to deal with their applications for citizenship in accordance with
law.

A large nnmber of families, popularly known as Cbakmas, migrated
G from erstwhile East Pakistan in 1964, first settled down in Assam and then
shifted to areas falling in the State of Arnnachal Pradesh. With the passage ,r
of time the families of Chakmas g,rew and their popnlation in the State
increased to about 65,000. Meanwhile relations between citizens of I-
Arunachal Pradesh and the Chakmas deteriorated. In October 1994 the
~

H Committee of Citizenship Rights of Chakmas (CCRC) filed a representa·
278
\
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION v. STATE 279

- , tion before the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) complaining
of persecution of the Chakmas by the local people. The NHRC issued
notices to the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the Union of India,
respondents no. 1 and 2 respectively . Later, it was represented to the
A

NHRC that all Arunachal Pradesh Students Union (AAPSU) issued quit
notices to all alleged foreigners including the Chakmas and threatened to
B
use force if they did not leave the State by September 30, 1995. In October
.• 1995, CCRC again sent two successive urgent petitioners to NHRC
alleging immediate threats to lives of the Chakmas. In the circumstances,
the NHRC, in view of the provisions of s.18 of the Protection of Human
Rights Act, 1993 filed the instant petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution seeking appropriate reliefs to the Chakmas. c
The Union Government, respondent no. 2 filed an affidavit before
this Court stating that it was making efforts to decide the issue of granting
citizenship to the Chakmas in accordance with Section 5(l)(a) of the Act
but respondent no. 1 has been expressing reservations on this account and
;
as the officers of respondent no. 1 did not forward along with their D
respondent the applications submitted by the Chakmas for grant of
citizenship, respondent no. 2 was prevented from considering the issue. It
was also stated that the Union Government had recommended to respond-
en! no. 1 to take. all necessary steps including deployment of Central para
military forces to provide security to the Chakmas. Respondent no. 1 in E
its counter affidavit denied the allegations of violations of Human Rights
• of the Chakmas and stated that it took bonafule and sincere steps towards
providing the Chakmas with basic amenities and to the best of its ability
protected their lives and property. It was contended on behalf of respond-
ent no. 1 that the issue of citizenship of the Chakmas had been conclusively
determined. by this Court in Khudiram Chak',,1a's case and the Chakmas,
F
being the foreigners, were not entitled to the Protection of Fundamental
Rights except as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Allowing the writ petition, this Court
G
... -< HELD : 1.1. There exists a clear and imminent danger to the lives
and personal liberty of the Chakmas and they are entitled to the protection
of Article 21 of the Constitution. [288-C]

Louis De Raedt. v. Union of India, [1991) 3 SCC 554 and State ~f
Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudiram Chakma, [1994) Supp. 1SCC615, relied on. H
I
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] l S.C.R.
A 1.2. The stand of respondent no. 1 that it has taken adequate steps
to ensure the protection of the Chakmas cannot be sustained. Aft"r
handling the present matter for more than a year, the NHRC recorded a
prima facie finding that issuance of quit notices appeared to b" supported
by the officers of respondent no. 1, and that respondent no. 1 had on the
B one hand delayed the disposal of the matter by not furnishing the required
response and had on the other hancl sought to enforce the eviction of the
Chakmas through its agencies, Further, according to respondent no: 2, the
threat posed by AAPSU was grave enough to warrant the placing of two
additional battalions of CRPF at the disposal of the State Administration;
and AAPSU and other triable student Organisations continued to agitate
c and press for the expulsion of all foreigners including the Chakmas. It was
reported that AAPSU had started enforcing of economic blockade on the
refugee camps which adversely affectecl the supply of rations, medical and
other essential facilities to the Chakmas, resulting in death of some of
them. [287-D-H; 288-A)
D
1.3. The State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human
being, be he a citizen or otherwise. No State worth the name can tolerate
threats by one group of persons to another group; it is duty bound to
protect the threatened group from such assaults. The State must act
E impartially and carry out its legal obligations to safeguard the life, health
and well being of the persons residing in the State without being inhibited
by local politics; and if it fails to do so, it will fail to perform its
constitutional as well as statutory obligations. [291-D-E)

1.4. Respondent no. 1, the State of Arunachal Pradesh, shall ensure
F that the life and personal liberty of each and every Chakma residing
within the state shall be protected and any attempt to forcibly evict or
drive them out of the State by organised groups, such as the AAPSU, shall
be repelled, if necessary by requi~itioning the services of para~miJitary or
police force; and respondent no. 2, the Union of India, shall provide such
G additional force as is necessary to protect the lives and liberty of the
Chakmas, [291-G-H; 292-A)

1.5. Except in accordance with law, the Chakmas shall n.ot be evicted
for their homes and shall not be denied domestic life and comfort therein.
H [292-B]
\
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION v. STATE 281
1.6. The quit notices and ultimatums issued by AAPSU and any A
other group which tantamount to threats to the life and liberty of each and
every Chakmas should be dealt with by the first respondent in accordance

-
with law. (292-B]

*State of Arunaclwl Pradesh v. Khudiram Chakma, [1994] Supp. 1 SCC
615, explained and distinguished. B

2.1. Unlike Khudiram Chakma's Case*, in the instant case the
Chakmas, who migrated to State of Arunachal Pradesh over two decades
ago, and their children born in the State, seek citizenship under the
Constitution and s.S(l)(a) of the Citizenship Act wherein the considera- C
tions are entirely different. Sect.ion S deals with citizenship by registration
and provides that the prescribed authority may, on receipt of an applica-
tion i11. that behalf, register a person who is not a citizen of India, as a
citizen of India, if he/she satisfies the conditions set out therein. This

...
provision is of general application and is not limited to persons belonging
to a certain class only as in the case of Khudiram Chakma* wherein the D
issue of citizenship was raised in a narrower context and was limited to
s.6-A(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1953. The Court observed that the
Chakmas in that case, could not avail of the benefit of s.6-A of the Act
which is a special provision for citizenship of persons covered by the
Assam accord. Section 5, therefore, can be invoked by persons who are not E
citizens of India but are seeking citizenship by registration; and applica-
,. tions of such persons are to be processed in accordance with Rules 7 to
12 of the Citizenship Rules, 1956. [289-D-E]

2.2. The Citizenship Rules provide that the application for registra-
tion as a citizen of India has to be made to the Collector within whose F
jurisdiction the applicant resides, and the Collector would transmit the
application to the Central Government. A conjoint reading of Rules 8 and
9 of the Rules makes it clear that the Collector has merely to receive the
application and forward it to the Central Government, and the power to
register a person as a citizen of India is vested in the authority constituted G
• under Rule 8 and only that authority can refuse to entertain an application
made under s.5 of the Act. [290-F-H]

2.3. It is an admitted fact that the Deputy Collector concerned, after
receipt of the application for citizenship, makes an inquiry and if the
report is adverse, he refuses to forward the application. He thus rejects H
I

282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] l S.C.R.
A the application at the threshold arnd does not forward it to the Central
Government. By refusing to forward the applications of the Chakmas, the
Deputy Collector is failing in his duty and is also preventing the Central
Government from performing its duty under the Act and the Rules.
Besides, the Chakmas are denied rights, constitutional and statutory, to be
considered for being registered as citizens of India. [291-B-C; Fl
B
2.4. The applications made for registration as citizen of India by the
Chakmas under Section 5 of the Act, shall be entered in the register
maintained for the purpose and shall be forwarded by the Collector or the
Deputy Collector who receives them under the relevant rule with or
C without enquiry, as the case may be, to the Central Government for its
consideration in accordance with law; even returned applications shall be
called back or fresh ones shall be obtained from the concerned persons and
shall be processed and forwarded to the Central Government for consid-
eration. (292-C-D]

D 2.5. While the application of any individual Chakma is pending
consideration, the first respondent shall not evict or remove the concerned
person from his occupation on the <!ronnd that he is not a citizen of India
until the competent authority has taken a decision in that behalf. (292-E]

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 720 of
E 1995.

(Under Article 32 of the Conslitution of India.)

F.S. Nariman, Ms. Bina Madhavan, P.H. Parekh, Subhash Sharma and
Gopal Jain for the Petitioner.
F
K.K. Venupoal S. Atreya, Mukul .Mudgal and Shahid Rizvi for the
Respondent No. 1

D.P. Gupta, Solicitor General, P. Prameswaran and Hemant Sharma for
the Respondent No. 2.
G
The Jud¥ment of the Court was delivered by

AHMADI, CJ. This public interest petition, being a writ petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution, has been filed by the National Human Rights
Commission O:iereinafter called "NHRC") and seeks to enforce the rights,
H under Article 21·of the Constitution, of about 65,000 Chakma/Hajong tribals
\
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION v. STATE [AHMADI, J.] 283
(hereinafter called "Chakmas"). It is alleged that these Chakmas, settled A
mainly in the state of Arunachal Pradesh, are being persecuted by sections of
the citizens of Arunachal Pradesh. The first respondent is the State of
Arunachal Pradesh and the second respondent is the Union of India.

· The NHRC has been set up under the Protection of Human Rights Act,
1993 (No. 10 of 1994). Section 18 of this Act empowers the NHRC to B

... )
approach this Court in appropriate cases.

The Factual 1natrix of the case may now be referred to. A large number
of Chakmas fro.m erstwhile East Pakishtan (now Bangladesh) were displaced
by the Kaptai Hyde! Power Project in 1964. They had taken shelter in Assam C
and Tripura. Most of them were settled in these States and became Indian
citizens in due course of time. Since a large number of refugees had taken
shelter in Assam, the Stale Government had expressecj its inability to rehabili-
tate all of them and requested assistance in this regard from certain other
States. Thereafter, in consultation with the erstwhile NEFA administration
(North East Frontier Agency - now Arunachal Pradesh), about 4,012 Chakmas D
were settled in parts of NEFA. They were also allotted some land in
consultation with local tribals. The Government of India had also sanctioned
rehabilitation assistance @ Rs. 4,200 per family. The present population of
Chakmas in Arunachal pradesh is estimated to be around 65,000.
E
The issue of conferring citizenship on the Chakmas was considered by
the second respondent from time to time. The Minister of State for Home

... Affairs has ~o several occasions expressed the intention of the second
respondent in this regard. Groups of Chakmas have represented to the
petitioner that they have made representations for the grant of citizenship
under Section 5(l)(a) of the. Citizenship Act, 1955 (hereinafter called "The F
Act") before their local Deputy Commissioners but no decision has been
communicated to them. In recent ye.ars, relations between citizens of Arunachal
Pradesh and the Chakmas have deteriorated, and the latter have complained
• that they are being subjected to repressive measures with a view to forcibly
expelling them from the State of Arunachal Pradesh. G
On September 9, 1994, the,People:s Union for Civil Liberties, Delhi
brought this issue to the attention of the NHRC wnich issued letter to the Chief
Secretary, Arnnachal Pradesh and the Home Secretary, Government of India _
making enquiries in this regard. On September 30, 1994, the Chief Secretary
of Arnnachal Pradesh faxed a reply stating that the situation was totally under H
j

284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] l S.C.R.
A control and adequate police protection had been given to the Chakmas.
On October, 15, 1994, the Committee for Citizenship Rights of the
Chakmas (hereinafter called "The CCRC") filed a representation with the
NHRC complaining of the persecution of the Chakmas. The petition contained
a press report carried in "The Telegraph" dated August 26, 1994 stating that
B the All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union (Hereinafter called "AAPSU") had
issued "quit notices" to all alleged foreigners, including .the Chakmas, to leave
the State by September 30, 1995. The AAPSU had threatened to use for~e if
its demand was not acceded to. The matter was treated as a formal complaint ._
by the NHRC and on October 28, 1994, it issued notices to the first and the <
C second respondents calling for their reports on the issue.

On November, 22, 1994, the Ministry of Home Affairs sent a note to
the petitioner reaffirming its intention of granting citizenship to the Chakmas.
It also pointed out that Central Reserve forces had been deployed in respononse
to the threat of the AAPSU and that the State Administration had been directed
D to ensure the protection of the Chakmas. On December 7, 1994, the NHRC
direi::ted the first and second respondents to appraise it of the steps taken to
protect the Chakmas. This direction was ignored till September, 1995 despite
the sending of reminders. On September 25, 1995, the first respondent filed
an interim reply and asked for time of four weeks' duration to file a
supplementary report. The first respondent did not, however, comply with its
. E own deadline.

On October 12, 1995 and again on October 28, 1995, the CCRC sent
urgent petitions to the NHRC alleging immediate threats to the lives of the
Chakmas. On October 29, 1995, the NHRC recorded a primafacie conclusion
p that the officers of the first respondent were acting in coordination with the
AAPSU with a view to expelling the Chakmas from the State of Arnnachal
Pradesh. The NHRC stated that since the first respondent was delaying the
matter, and since it had doubt as to whether its own efforts would be sufficient
to sustain the Chakmas in their own habitat, it had decided to approach this
Court to seek appropriate reliefs.
G
On November 2, 1995, this Court issued an interim order directing the
first respondent to ensure that the Chakmas situated in its territory are not \_ .
ousted by any coercive action, not in accordance with law.

We may now refer to the stance of the Union of India, the second
H respondent, on the issue. It has been pointed out that, in 1964, pursuant to
\
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION v. STATE [AHMADI, J.] 285
extensive discussions between the Government of India and the NEFA A
administration, it was decided to send the Chakmas for the purposes of their
resettlement to the territory of the present day Arunachal Pradesh. The
Chakmas have been residing in Arunachal Pradesh for more than three
decades, having developed close social, religious and economic ties. To uproot
them at this stage would be both impracticable and inhuman. Our attention has
B
been drawn to a Joint Statement issued by the Prime Minister.;; of India and
Bangladesh at.New Delhi in February, 1972, pursuant to which the Union
Government had conveyed to all the States concerned, it's decision to. confer
citizenship on the Chakmas, in accordance with Section 5(l)(a) of the Act. The
second respondent further states that the children of the Chakmas, who were
born in India Prior to the amendment of the Act in 1987, would have legitimate c
claims to citizenship. According to the Union of India, the first respondent has
been expressing reservations on this account. By not forwarding the applica-
tions submitted by the Chakmas along with their reports for grant of citizen-
ship as required by Rule 9 of the Citizenship Rules, 1955, the officers of the
first respondent are preventing the Union of India from considering the issue D
• of citizenship of the Chakmas. We are further informed that the Union of India
is actively considering the issue of citizenship and has recommended to the
first respondent that it take all necessary steps for providing security to the
Chakmas. To this end, central para-military forces have been made available
for deployment in the strife-ridden areas. The Union Government favours a
dialogue between the State Government, the Chakmas and all concerned E
within the State to amicably resolve the issue of granting citizenship to the
Chakmas while also redressing the genuine grievances of the citizens of
' Arunachal Pradesh.

The first respondent, in its counter to the petition, has contended before F
us that the allegations of violation of human rights are incorrect; that it has
taken bona fide and sincere steps toward.s providing the Chakmas with basic
amenities and has, to the best of its ability, protected their Jives and properties.
It is further contended that the issue of citizenship of the Chakmas has been
conclusively determined by the decision of this Court in State ~f Arunachal
Pradesh v. Khudiram Chakma, [1994] Supp. I SCC 615 - hereinafter calJed G
"Khudiram Chakm's case") .. It is therefore, contended that since the Chakmas
are f6reigners, they are .not entitled to the protection of fundamental rights
except Article 21. This being so, the authorities may, at any time, ask the
Chakmas to move. They also have the right to ask the Chakmas to quit the
state, if they so desire. According to the first respondent, having Jost their case H
I
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] l S.C.R.
A in this Court, the Chakmas have "raised a bogey of violation of human rights."

The first respondent has filed a counter to the stand taken by the Union
of India. The first respondent denies that the Union of India had sent the CRPF
Battalions of its own accord; according to it, they were sent pursuant to its
letter dated 20.9.1994 asking for assistance. It has also denied that certain
B Chakmas were killed on account of economic blockades effected by the
AAPSU; according to it, these casualties were the result of a malarial
epidemic. The first respondent reiteraies that the sui generis Constitutional
position of the State debars it from permitting outsiders to be settled within
its territory, that· it has limited resources and that its economy is mainly
c dependent on the vagaries of nature; and that it has no financial resources to
tend to the needs of the Chakmas having already spent approximately Rs. 100
crores on their upkeep. It has also been stated that the Union of India has
refused to share its financial responsibility for the upkeep of the Chakmas.

Referring to the issue of grant of citizenship it is submitted as follows:
D
"It is submitted.that under the Citizenship Act, 1.955 and the Rules
made thereunder a specific procedure is provided for forwarding the
application for grant of citizenship. According to that after rec~iving
the application, the DC of the area makes necessary enquiries about
the antecedents of the applicant and after getting a satisfactory report
E forward 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
F before the DC."

It may be pointed out that this stand of the first respondent is in direct
contravention of the stand adopted by it in the representation dated September
25, 1995, submitted by it to the NHRC where it had stated:

G "The question of grant of citizenship is entirely governed by the
Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Ce.ntral Government is the sole
authority to grant citizenship. The State Government has no jurisdic-
tion .in the matter."

It is further submitted by the first respondent that under the Constitution,
H the state of Arunachal Pradesh enjoys a special status and, bearing in mind its
HUMAN RJGHTS COMMISSION v. STATE [AHMADI, J.] 287
ethnicity, it has been declared that it would be administered under Part X of A
_,. the Constitution. That is the reason why laws and regulations applicable during
~
the British Regime continue to apply even today. The settlement of Chakmas
in large numbers in the State would disturb its ethnic balance and destroy its
culture and identity. The special provisions made in the Constitution would
be set at naught if the State's tribal population is allowed to be invaded by
B
people from outside. The tribals, therefore, consider Chakrnas as a potential
threat to their tradition and culture and are, therefore, keen that the latter do
' not entrench themselves in the State. Besides, the financial resources of the
4 State without Central assistance, which is ordinarily not forthcoming, would
throw a heavy burden on the State which it would find well high impossible
to bear. In the circumstances, contends the first respondent, it is unfair and c
... unconstitutional to throw the burden of such a large number of Chakmas on
the State.

We are unable to accept the contention of the first respondent that no
threat exists to the life and liberty of the Chakmas guaranteed by Article 21
of the constitution, and that it has taken adequate steps to ensure the protection D
•
of the Chakmas. After handling the present matter for more than a year, the
NHRC recorded a prima facie finding that the service of quit notices and their
admitted enforcement appeared to be supported by the officers of the first
respondent. The NHRC further held that the first respondent had, on the one
hand, delayed the disposal of the matter by not furnishing the required E
response and had, on the other hand, sought to enforce the eviction of the
, Chakmas through its agencies. It is to be noted that, at no time, has the first
respondent sought to condemn the activities of the AAPSU. However, the most
damning facts against the first respondent are to be found in the counter
affidavit of the second respondent. In the assessment of the Union of India,
the threat p_osed by the AAPSU was grave enough to warrant the placing of
F
two additional battalions of CRPF at the disposal of the State Administration.
Whether it was done at the behest of the State Government or by the Union
. on its own is of no consequence; the fact that it had become necessary speaks
for itself. The second respondent further notes that after the expiry of the
deadline of October 30, 1994, the AAPSU and other tribal student organisa- G
tions continued to agitate and press for the expulsion of all foreigners
4 including the Chakrnas. It was reported that the AAPSU had started enforcing
of economic blockades on the refugee camps, which adversely affected the
supply of rations, medical and essential facilities, etc. to the Chakmas. Of
course the State Government has denied the allegation, but the independent
H
j
'

288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] l S.C.R.
A inquiry of the NHRC shows otherwise. The fact that the Chakmas were dying
on account of the blockade for want of medicines is an established fact. After
reports regarding lack of medical facilities and the spread of malaria and ,_
dysentery in Chakma settlements were received, the Union Government
advised the first respondent to ensure normal supplies of essential commodi-
ties to the Chakma settlement. On September 20, 1995 the AAPSU, once
B
again, issued an ultimatum citing December 31, 1995 as the fresh deadline for
the ousting of Chakmas. This is yet another threat which the first respondent
has not indicated how it proposes to counter.

It is, therefore, clear that there exists a clear and present danger to the
C 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.

The contentioq_of the first respondent that the ruling of this Court in
D Khudiram Chakma's case has foreclosed the consideration of the citizenship
of Chakmas is misconceived. The facts of that case reveal that the appellant
and 56 families migrated to India in 1964 from erstwhile East Pakistan and
were lodged in the Government Refugee Camp at Ledo. They were later
shifted to another camp at Miao. In 1966, the State Government drew up the
Chakma Resettlement Scheme for refugees and the Chakmas were allotted
E lands in two villages. The appellant, however, strayed out and secured land in
another area by private negotiations. The State questioned the legality of the
said transaction since, under the Regulations then ·in force, no person other
than a native of that District could acquire land in it. Since there were '
complaints against the appeliant and others who had settled on this land, the
F State by order dated.February 15, 1984, directed that they shift to the area
earmarked for them. This order was challenged on the ground that Chakmas
who had settled there were citizens of India and by seeking their forcible
eviction, the State was violating their fundamental rights and, in any case, the
order was arbitrary and illegal as violative of the principles of natural justice.
On the question of citizenship, they invoked section 6-A of the Act which,
G inter aliea, provides that all persons of India origin who came before January
1, 1966 to Assam from territories included in Bangaldesh Immediately before
the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985, and who had
been ordinarily resident in Assam since their entry irito Assam shall be deemed
to be citizens of India as from January 1, 1966. Others who had come· to
H Assam after that date and before March 25, 1971, and had been ordinarily
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION v. STATE [AHMADI, J.] 289
residing in Assam since then and had been detected to be foreigners, could A
register themselves. It will thus be seen that the appellant and others claimed
citizenship under this special provision made pursuant to the Assam Accord.
The High Court held that the appellant and others did not fall under the said
category as they had stayed in Assam for a short period in 1964 and had
strayed away therefrom in the area now within the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
B
On appeal this Court affirmed that view. It is, therefore, clear that in that case,
·the Court was required to consider the .claim of citizenship based on the
language of Section 6-A of the Act. Thus, in Khudiram Chakma's case, this
Court was seized of a n1atter where 57 Chakma families ~1 ere seeking to
challenge an order requiring them to vacate land brought by them in direct
contravention of clause 7 of the Bangal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873. The c
issue of citizenship was raised in a narrower context and was limited to section
6-A(2) of the Act. The· Court observed that the Chakmas in that case , who
were resident in Arunachal Pradesh, could not avail of the benefit of section
6A of the Act which is a special provision for the citizenship of persons
covered by the Assam accord. In the present case, the Chakmas are seeking D
to obtain citizenship under Section 5( 1)(a) of the Act, where the considerations
are entirely different. That section provides for citizenship by registration. It
says that the prescribed authority may, on receipt of an application in that
behalf, register a person who is not a citizen of India, as a citizen of India if
he/she satisfies the conditions set out therein. This provision is of general
application and is not limited to persons belonging to a certain group only as E
in the case of Section 6-A. Section 5, therefore, can be invoked by persons
who are not citizens of India but are seeking citizenship by registration. Such
• applications would have to be in the form prescribed by part II of the
Citizenship Rules, 1956 (hereinafter called "The Rules"). Under Rule 7, such
application has to be made to the Collector within whose jurisdiction the F
applicant is ordinarily resident. Rule 8 describes the authority to register a
person as a citizen of India under Section 5(1) of the Act. It says that the
authority to register a person as a citizen of India shall be an officer not below
the rank of a Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of
Home Affairs, and also includes such officer as the Central Government may,
by a notification in the Official Gazette, appoint and in any other case falling G
under the Rules, any officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the
Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs, and also includes such
other officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, appoint. Rule 9 next enjoins the Collector to transmit every applica-
tion received by him under Section 5(1)(a) to the Central Government through H
j
• 290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] l S.C.R.
A the State Government or the Union Territory administration, as the case may
be, along with a report on matters set out in clauses (a) to (e) thereof. Rule
10 provides for issuance of a certificate to be granted to persons registered as
citizens and Rules 11 and 12 provide for maintenance of registers. These are
the relevant rules in regard to registration of persons as citizens of India.

B
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 Arunaehal Pradesh. They have settled there since the last
about two and a half decades and have raised their families in the said State.
C 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 forcible drive them
out to the neighbouring State which in turn is unwilling to accept them. The
residents of t_he neighbouring State have also threatened to kill them if they
D 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.

By virtue of their long and prolonged stay in the State, the Chakmas
E who migrated to, and those born in 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
•
F the relev~nt 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
G 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
H the Act. Yet it is an admitted fact that after receipt of the application, the
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION v. STATE [AHMADI, J.] 291

Deputy Collector (DC) makes an enquiry and if the report is adverse, the DC A
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
B
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.
c
We are a country governed by the Rule of Law. Our Constitution confers
certain righ~s 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 D
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 person 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 E
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
F
considered for being registered as citizens of India.

In view of the above, we allow this petition and directed the first and
second respondents, by way of a writ of mandamus, as under :

(1) the first respondent, the State of Arunachal Pradesh, shall ensure that
G
the life and personal liberty of each and every Chakma residing within the
State shall be protected and ai\y attempt to forcibly evict or drive them out of
the State by organised groups, such as the AAPSU, shall be repelled, if
necessary by requisitioning the service of para-military or police force, and if
additional forces are considered necessary to carry out this direction, the first H·
j

292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] 1 S.C.R.
A respondent will request the second respondent, the Union of India, to provide
such additional force and the second respondent shall provide such additional
force as is necessary to protect the lives and liberty of the Chakmas;

(2) except in accordance with law, the Chakmas shall not be evicted
from their homes and shall not be denied domestic life and comfort therein;
B
(3) the quit notices and ultimatums issued by the AAPSU and any other
group which tantamount to threats to the Life and liberty of each and every
Chakma should be dealt with by the first respondent in accordance with law;

(4) the application made for registration as citizen of India by the
C Chakma or Chakmas under Section 5 of the Act, shall be entered in the register
maintained for the purpose and shall be forwarded by the Collector or the DC
who receives them under the relevant rules with or without enquiry, as the case
may be, to the Central Government for its consideration in accordance with
law ; even returned applications shall be called. back or fresh ones shall be
D obtained from the concerned persons and shall be processed and forwarded to
the Central. Government for consideration;

(5) while the application of any individual Chakmas is pending consid-
eration, the first respondent shall not evict or remove the concerned person
fr~m his occupation on the ground that he is not a citizen of India until the
E competent authority has taken a decision in that behalf; and

(6) the .first respondent will pay to the petitioner cost of this petition
which we quantify at Rs. 10,000 within six. weeks from today by depositing
•
the same in the office of the NHRC, New Delhi.

F The petition shall stand so disposed of.

R.P. Petition allowed°.