COMMITTEE FOR C.R. OF C.A.P. & ORS.versusSTATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

                        [2015) 9 S.C.R. 1020


A            COMMITTEE FOR C.R. OF C.A.P. & ORS.
                                  v.
           STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH & ORS.
               (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 510 OF 2007)
B
                       SEPTEMBER 17, 2015
       [ANIL R. DAVE AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.]

        Citizenship Act, 1955 - s. 5(1)(a) - Citizenship rights
c on Chakmas and Hajongs - Conferment of - Writ petition
  filed seeking grant of citizenship rights to Chaknias and
  Hajongs - Chakmas and Hajongs had migrated to India in
  1964-69 and settled in the State of Arunachal Pradesh -
  Held: It is acknowledged on the basis of stand of the
D Government of India that the Chakmas have a right to be
  granted citizenship subject to the procedure being followed
  - There is recognition by judicial decisions that they cannot
  be required to obtain any Inner Line permit as they are $ettled
  in the State of Arunachal Pradesh - Thus, the Government
E of India and the State of Arunachal Pradesh directed to
  finalise the conferment of citizenship rights on eligible
  Chakmas and Hajongs and also to ensure compliance of
  directions in judicial decisions for protection of their life and
  liberty and against their discrimination in any manner -
F Constitution of India, 1950 -Art. 32.

         National Human Rights Commission vs. State of
         Arunachal Pradesh 1996 (1) SCR 278: (1996) 1
         SCC 742; All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union
G        (AAPSU) vs. The Election Commission of India
         PIL No. 52 of 2010 dated 191h March 2013 by
         Gauhati High Court; Peoples Union for Civil
         Liberties vs. Election Commission of India & Ors.
         W.P. No. 886 of 2000 dated 28th September
H        2000 by Delhi High Court; State of Arunachal
                                1020
     COMMITTEE FOR C.R. OF C.A.P. v. STATE OF                  1021
            ARUNACHAL PRADESH

     Pradesh vs. Khudiram Chakma 1993 (3) SCR                   A
     401: (1994) Supp. 1SCC615- referred to.

                   Case Law Reference
1996 (1) SCR 278            referred to.          Para 2
                                                                B
1993 (3) SCR 401            referred to.          Para 17
    CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
510 of2007

         Under Article 32 of the Consitution of India           c
     Colin Gonsalves, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Nitesh Kumar
Singh, Neha, fortheAppellants.

      P.S. Patwalia, ASG, Sadhana Sandhu, Tushar Bakshi,
(for Sushma Suri), Ariil Shrivastav, Rituraj Biswas, Anitha     D
Shenoy for the Respondents.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition under E
Article 32 of the Constitution of India mainly seeks direction
against Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs to grant
citizenship to the Chakma and Hajong Tribals who migrated
to India in 1964-1969 and were settled in the State of Arunachal
Pradesh.                                                         F

      2. Petitioner No.1 has described itself as "Committee
for Citizenship Rights of the Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh"
("CCRC"). According to the averments in the petition,
representations were filed with the National Human Rights G
Commission ("NHRC") alleging persecution ofChakmas and
Hajongs in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The NHRC
approached this Court by way of a Writ Petition (C) No. 720 of
1995 titled "National Human Rights Commission vs. State
of Arunacha/ Pradesh" seeking direction from this Court to H
1022          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 9 S.C.R.


 A     ensure that the Chakmas and Hajongs are not forcibly ousted
       from the State of Arunachal Pradesh, which was disposed of
       on gih January, 19961• In the said case, the Union of India
       appeared before this Court and stated that decision to settle
       the Cha.kmas in the State of Arunachal Pradesh was taken
 B     after discussion between the Government of India and the
       .North-East Frontier Agency ("NEFA") Administration
       (Predecessor of the State of Arunachal Pradesh). The
       Chakmas were residing in the State of Arunachal Pradesh for
       more than three decades and had close social, religious and
 C     economic ties. As per joint statement issued by the Prime
       Ministers of India and Bangladesh in February, 1972, the Union
       Government took a decision to confer citizenship on the
       Chakmas under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955
       but the State of Arunachal Pradesh had reservations on this
 0
       count. The Central Government was in favour of a dialogue
       between the State Government, the Chakmas and all
        concerned to resolve the issue of granting citizenship while
       also redressing the genuine grievances of citizens of Arunachal
 E      Pradesh. The stand of the State of Arunachal Pradesh was
       that it had provided basic amenities to the Chakmas but the
        State had a right to ask the Chakmas to quit the State. The
        State could not permit outsiders to settle within its territory as
        it had limited resources and the Union of India had refused to
 F      share its responsibility. The Deputy Commissioner of the area
        was to forward the applications for citizenship after due inquiry
        but no such application was pending. Further stand of the state
        was that settlement of Chakmas will disturb its ethnic balance
        and destroy its culture and identity. The tribals of the State
 G      consider Chakmas as potential threat to their tradition and
        culture.

            3. This Court considered rival submissions and held that
       the Chakmas apprehend threat on theAllArunachal Pradesh
 H      1 (1996) 1 sec 742
    COMMITTEE FOR C.R. OF C.A.P. v. STATE OF                1023
  ARUNACHAL PRADESH [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

Students' Union ("AAPSU") who were reported to be enforcing A
economic blockades on the refugee camps, adversely affecting
supply of ration, medical and essential facilities to the
Chakmas. Some Chakmas had died on account of blockade.
This Court further noticed that Chakmas could invoke Section
5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act by filing application in form B
prescribed by Part II of the Citizenship Rules, 1956. The
observations in NHRC case (supra), interalia, are as follows:-

     "18. From what we have said hereinbefore, there
     is no doubt that the Chakmas who migrated from         C
     East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in 1964, first
     settled down in the State ofAssam and then shifted
     to areas which now fall within the State ofArunachal
     Pradesh. They have settled there since the last
     about two and a half decades and have raised their     D
     families in the said State. 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 forcibly          E
     drive them out to the neighbouring State which in
     turn is unwilling to accept them. The residents of
     the neighbouring State have also threatened to
     kill them if they try to enter their State. They are
                                                             F
     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       G
     reliefs.

     19. By virtue of their long and prolonged stay in
     the State, the Chakmas who migrated to, and those
     born in the State, seek citizenship under the
                                                            H
     Constitution read with Section 5 of the Act. We
1024   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2015] 9 S.C.R.


 A     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.
 B     We have adverted to the relevant 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
 c     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
 D
       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
 E     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. Yet
       it is an admitted faci that after receipt of the
 F     application, the Deputy Collector (DC) makes an
       enquiry and if the report is adverse, the DC 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
 G     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 Collector, who receives
 H     the application should be directed to forward the
  COMMITTEE FOR C.R. OF C.A.P. v. STATE OF                  1025
ARUNACHAL PRADESH [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

  same to the Central Government to enable it to            A
  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             B
  Act and the Rules.

  20. We are a country governed by the Rule of Law.
  Our Constitution confers certain rights on every
  human being and certain other rights on citizens.         c
  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       D
  and liberty of every human being, be he a citizen
  or otherwise, and it cannot permit any body or
  group of persons, e.g., theAAPSU, tothreaten the
  Chakmas to leave the State, failing which they
  would be forced to do so. No State Government             E
  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
                                                             F
  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   G
  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 considered for being registered as       H
  citizens of India."
1026         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 9 S.C.R.


 A           4. Accordingly, direction was issued to the State of
       Arunachal Pradesh to ensure that life and liberty of Chakrnas
       residing in the State was protected against any attempt to evict
       them by organized groups such as AAPSU and their
       applications could be forwarded to the Central Government.
 B
         5. Case of the petitioners, further is that the application
   of the State of Arunachal Pradesh for modification and Writ
   Petition (C) No.593of1997 filed by an organization of tribals
   of Arunachal Pradesh against the judgment of this Court was
 C also dismissed. Another writ petition being Writ Petition No.13
   of 1998 against the judgment of this Court was dismissed on
   9th December, 2002. Thereafter applications were filed for
   citizenship but the same were not acted upon. The Election
   Commission of India in the light qf judgment of this Court
 D passed orders dated 3rd March, 2004 declaring the resolution·
   dated 14th May, 2003 passed by the State of Arunachal
   Pradesh against facilities to the petitioners to be
   unconstitutional but the authorities of the State of Arunachal
   Pradesh had not forwarded the applications as required under
 E Rule 9 of the Citizenship Rules to the Central Government.

         6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Union of India
   stating that the applications directly received by the Ministry of
   Horne Affairs were forwarded to the Government of Arunachal
 F Pradesh which had not been returned except few applications
   with negative recommendations. The said applications were
   returned back to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh.
   Ministry of Horne Affairs had advised the Government of
   Arunachal Pradesh to act in compliance with the judgment of
 G this Court.

         7. The stand of the State of Arunachal Pradesh is that
   there was no threat to the life and liberty of the Chakrnas and
   Hajong refugees. After receiving the judgment of this Court,
 H the judgment was circulated to Inspector General of Police,
    COMMITTEE FOR C.R. OF C.A.P. v. STATE OF 1027
 ARUNACHAL PRADESH [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

Deputy Commissioners of the concerned Districts and                   A
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. The State Government
was fully bound by the direction of this Court and had taken all
necessary steps to comply with the same. The State of
Arunachal Pradesh had received 4382 applications. Though
the popular sentiment of the indigenous tribals was different,        B
the State of Arunachal Pradesh was honouring the order of
this Court. It is further stated that Chakmas and Hajong tribes
were settled in NEFA from 1964 to 1969 when there were no
elected bodies in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The laws
applicable in the State of Arunachal _Pradesh like the                C
Government of India Act, 1870, the Bengal Eastern Frontier
Regulation, 1873, the Scheduled DistrictAct, 1874, the Assam
Frontier Tract Regulation, 1880, the Assam Frontier Forest
Regulation, 1891, the Chin Hills Regulations, 1896 and the            D
Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945
(1 of 1945) were not taken into account. One thousand four
hundred ninety seven Chakmas have bee.n include_d in the
electoral rolls.

       8. The petitioners have filed a rejoinder affidavit alleging   E
that children of Chakmas and Hajongs are denied educational
facilities. They were not being covered by the public
distribution system. They presented a petition to the 10th Lok
Sabha and also to Rajya Sabha Committee on Petitions. The             F
said Committee in its 105th Report published on 141h August,
1997 made recommendation to grant Indian Citizenship to the
Chakmas but the said recommendation has not been acted
upon. The recommendation is as follows :
      "42. The Committee, therefore, recommends that                  G
      the Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh who came
      there prior to 25.3.1971 be granted Indian
      citizenship. The Committee also recommends
      that those Chakmas who have been born in India
      should also be considered for Indian citizenship.               H
1028            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 9 S.C.R.


 A          The Committee further recommends that the fate
            of those Chakmas who came to the State after
            25.3.1971 be discussed and decided by the
            Central Government and State Government
            Jointly. The Committees also recommends that
 B          all the old applications of Cha/.(mas for citizenship
            which have either been rejected or withheld by
            Deputy Commissioners or the State Deputy
            Commissioner or the State Government continue
            to block the forwarding of such applications to
 c          Central Government, the Central Government
            may consider to incorporate necessary provision
            in the Rules (or the Act it so required) whereby it
            could directly receive, consider and decide the
            application for citizenship in the 23 case of
 D
            Chakmas ofArunachal Pradesh. The Committee
            also recommends that Chakmas be also
            considered. for granting them the status of
            Scheduled Tribes at the time of granting the
 E          citizenship. The Committee would like to earnestly
            urge upon the Central Government and State
            Government to ensure that until amicable solution
            is arrived at, the Chakmas are allowed to stay in
            Arunachal Pradesh with full protection and safety,
 F          honour and dignity".
            9. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court
       on 1• August, 2012, the following order was passed :-
            1


            "Mr. 8. Bhattacharyya, learned Additional Solicitor
 G          General for respondent No. 5, and Mr. Anil
            Shrivastav, learned counsel for respondent Nos.
            1 to 4, pray for some time to seek instructions and
            also to ensure that the controversy raised in the
            Writ Petition is resolved at the hands of the
 H          Central Government and the State Government
            at the earliest."
    COMMITTEE FOR C.R. OF C.A.P. v. STATE OF 1029
 ARUNACHAL PRADESH [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]
    10. Again on 281h August, 2012, following order was A
passed:
    "Mr. B. Bhattacharyya, teamed Additional Solicitor
    General appearing for the respondent No. 5
    - Union of India, submits that all 4637               B
    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         c
    authority in prescribed form and were also
    not accompanied with the recommendations
    o~ the State Government as per statutory
    requirement.
                                                          D
    Having regard to the decision of this Court in
    National Human Rights Commission Vs. State
    of Arunachal Pradesh and Another, (1996) 1
    sec 742, and the directions contained therein,
    we direct the State ofArunachal Pradesh to submit
                                                          E
    a comprehensive report/affidavit to this Court in
    respect of 4637 applications returned by the
    Central Government to the State Government on
    tl}e following aspects in respect of each
    application :-                                        F
     (i) Whether the conditions laid down in the
   . relevant clauses of Section 5 of the Citizenship
     Act, 1955 (for short, 'AcfJ are satisfied;
    (ii) Whether the applicant has an intention to        G
    make India his permanent home;
    (iii) Whether the applicant has signed oath of
    allegiance as specified in the Second Schedule
    to the Act; and
                                                          H
1030         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 9 S.C.R.


 A          (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
 B
            through the Secretary (Political), Government
            of Arunachal Pradesh within two months from
            today.
            A copy of the report/affidavit shall be given to the
 c          Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners well in
            advance."
            11. On 201h January, 2014, this Court passed the following
       Order:
 D
            "List the matter on 5th May, 2014, so as to enable
            the Joint High Powered Committee constituted
            vide Government of India's OrderNo.131212010-
            NE-/I datecj 1010812010. to place on record the
            progress made in the matter.
 E
              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."

 F       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 101h August, 2010 to examine
 G 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 91h January, 2012 and taken certain decisions.
 H Thus, the issue was not being ignored though there was no
   delay in the matter.
     COMMITIEE FOR C.R. OF C.A.P. v. STATE OF                        1031
  ARUNACHAL PRADESH [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

     13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and A
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       B
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               C
Pradesh 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         D
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 Cha km as being treated        E
as ordinary residents of Arunachal Pradesh in absence of
possession of valid lnnerline Passes was also considered.
The Election Commission of India supported its guidelines with
guidelines with reference to a judgment of the Delhi High Court       F
dated 28th September, 2000 in W.P. No.886 of 2000 (Peoples
Union for Civil Liberties vs. Election Commission ofIndia
& Ors.)

     15. In the judgment of the ~auhati High Court, it was
noted that in contradiction to those unwanted illegal migrants G
who sneak ihto the country, the Chakmas migrated to India on
account of their displacement and the Government of India
agreed to grant them citizenship. In these circumstances, the
guidelines of the Government of India were held to be justified H
1032         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 9 S.C.R.


 A     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
 B          by the Hon'ble Supreme Co.urt 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.
 c
            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
 o          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
 E          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
 F          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
 G          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.
 H
     COMMITTEE FOR C.R. OF C.A.P. v. STATE OF               1033
. ARU'NACHAL PRADESH [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.)

    Similarly, as regards, the other contention of the      A
    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         B
    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             c
    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
                                                            D
    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      E
    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
                                                             F
   which had been issued by the Election
   Commission of India are merely to enable thpse
   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       G
   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    H
1034          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 9 f?.C.R.


 A           to have their rights as citizens of this country
             protected and safeguarded."

         16. We find merit in the contention of the petitioners. It
   stands acknowledged by this Court on the basis of stand of
 B 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.
 c
             17. In State of Arunachal Pradesh vs. Khudiram
       Chakma 2, this Court noted the ancient history of Arunachal
       Pradesh as follows :
             "41. The history of the mountainous and multitribal
 D           north-east frontier region which is now known as
             Arunachal Pradesh ascends for hundreds ofyears
             into the mists of tradition and mythology.
             According to Pauranic legend, Rukmini, the
             daughter of King Bhishmak, was carried away on
 E
             the eve of her marriage by Lord Krishna himself.
             The ruins of the fort at Bhalukpung are claimed
             by the Akas as the original home of their ancestor
             Bhaluka, the grandson of Bana Raja, who was
             defeated by Lord Krishna at Tezpur (Assam). A
 F
             Kalita King, Ramachandra, driven from his
             kingdom in the plains of Assam, fled to the Oaf/a
             (now Nishang) foothills and established there his
           · capital of Mayapore, which is identified with the
 G           ruins on the /ta hill. A place of great sanctity in the
             beautiful lower reaches of the Lohit River, the
             Brahmakund, where Parasuram opened a
             passage through the hills with a single blow of his
             mighty axe, still attracts the Hindu pilgrims from
 H           all over the country."
       2 (1994) Supp. 1   sec 615
     COMMITTEE FOR C.R. OF C.A.P. v. STATE OF 1035
  ARUNACHAL PRADESH [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

          18. The above history shows the integral link of the State A
  of Arunachal Pradesh with the rest of the country since ancient
  times. It is well known that the Chakmas and Hajorigs 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 Govern- B
  ment 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 appli-
  cable procedure. They could not be discriminated against in
  any manner pending formal conferment of rights of citizenship. C
  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                   D
 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         E
 and Hajongs and also to ensure compliance of directions in
 judicial decisions referred to in earlier part of 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.                                F

 Nidhi Jain                                       Writ Petition allowed.