COMMITTEE FOR C.R. OF C.A.P. & ORS. versus STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH & ORS.
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 1020, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
[2015) 9 S.C.R. 1020 
A 
COMMITTEE FOR C.R. OF C.A.P. & ORS. 
B 
v. 
STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 510 OF 2007) 
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. 
G 
H 
National Human Rights Commission vs. State of 
Arunachal Pradesh 1996 (1) SCR 278: (1996) 1 
SCC 7 42; All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union 
(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 
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. 
1996 (1) SCR 278 
1993 (3) SCR 401 
Case Law Reference 
referred to. 
referred to. 
Para 2 
Para 17 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 
510 of2007 
B 
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 
0 
but the State of Arunachal Pradesh had reservations on this 
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 of Assam and then shifted 
to areas which now fall within the State of Arunachal 
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 
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 
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. 
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 
Constitution read with Section 5 of the Act. We 
E 
F 
G 
H
1024 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
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 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 
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 
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 the Act. Yet 
it is an admitted faci that after receipt of the 
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 
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 
the application should be directed to forward the
COMMITTEE FOR C.R. OF C.A.P. v. STATE OF 
ARUNACHAL PRADESH [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
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. 
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. 
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 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 
worth the name can tolerate such threats by one 
group of persons to another group of persons; it is 
duty-bound to protect the threatened group from 
such assaults and if it fails to do so, it will fail to 
perform its constitutional as well as statutory 
obligations. 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 considered for being registered as 
citizens of India." 
1025 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
1026 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
4. Accordingly, direction was issued to the State of 
B 
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. 
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 
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. 
G 
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 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Jointly. The Committees also recommends that 
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 
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 
Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh. The Committee 
also recommends that Chakmas be also 
considered. for granting them the status of 
Scheduled Tribes at the time of granting the 
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, 
honour and dignity". 
9. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court 
on 1 •1 August, 2012, the following order was passed :-
"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 
ARUNACHAL PRADESH [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
1029 
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 
applications for grant of citizenship in respect of 
Chakmas received in the Ministry of Home 
Affairs, Government of 
India have· been 
returned to the State Government as the 
applications were not made to the appropriate 
authority in prescribed form and were also 
not accompanied with the recommendations 
o~ the State Government as per statutory 
requirement. 
Having regard to the decision of this Court in 
National 
Human Rights Commission Vs. State 
of Arunachal Pradesh and Another, (1996) 1 
sec 7 42, and the directions contained therein, 
we direct the State of Arunachal Pradesh to submit 
a comprehensive report/affidavit to this Court in 
respect of 4637 applications returned by the 
Central Government to the State Government on 
tl}e following aspects in respect of each 
application :-
(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 
make India his permanent home; 
(iii) Whether the applicant has signed oath of 
allegiance as specified in the Second Schedule 
to the Act; and 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
1030 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
(iv) Whether the applicant is of good character 
and is otherwise a fit and proper person to be 
registered as a citizen of India. 
The above report/affidavit shall be submitted by 
the State of Arunachal Pradesh to this Court 
through the Secretary (Political), Government 
of Arunachal Pradesh within two months from 
today. 
A copy of the report/affidavit shall be given to the 
Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners well in 
advance." 
11. On 201h January, 2014, this Court passed the following 
Order: 
"List the matter on 5th May, 2014, so as to enable 
the Joint High Powered Committee constituted 
vide Government of India's OrderNo.131212010-
NE-/I datecj 1010812010. to place on record the 
progress made in the matter. 
We are sure that the Committee would make all 
efforts so that the work entrusted to it is concluded 
preferably before the next date of hearing." 
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 of India 
& 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 
F 
G 
H 
the authorities of Arunachal Pradesh, they would 
become residents of Arunachal Pradesh and 
would not require the Inner Line Permit/Pass. 
Otherwise also, once they have been allowed to 
settle in Arunachal Pradesh, it would be deemed · 
that such permits had been granted to them and 
in our considered opinion, any other view would 
negate and
defeat the policy decision taken by . 
the Government of India in consultation with the 
Arunachal Pradesh authorities to settle these 
Chakmas in Arunachal Pradesh.
COMMITTEE FOR C.R. OF C.A.P. v. STATE OF 
. ARU'NACHAL PRADESH [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.) 
Similarly, as regards, the other contention of the 
petitioners that the guidelines would contravene 
the provisions of section 13 of the Registration of 
Births and Deaths Act, 1969 also cannot be 
accepted. It may be noted that the Chakmas had 
taken refuge in this country under distress and 
trying circumstances after having been uprooted 
from their hearth and homes and made to flee to 
avoid persecution. Further, later on, after having 
allowed to settle in Arunachal Pradesh, they had 
faced difficulties and harassments from the 
neighbouring local populace which had been 
taken note of by the Supreme Court in NHRC case 
as mentioned above. Therefore, issuing of the 
additional guidelines for the purpose of verification 
of the birth of the claimants on the basis of other 
credible materials for the purpose of enrolment in 
the electoral rolls where these Chakmas had been 
officially settled cannot be interfered with merely 
·on the technical ground that certain provisions of 
Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 have 
not been strictly complied with, if the evidences 
are otherwise credible and trustworthy. 
We are of the view that the additional guidelines 
which had been issued by the Election 
Commission of India are merely to enable 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 
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 
1033 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
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 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
17. In State of Arunachal Pradesh vs. Khudiram 
Chakma2, this Court noted the ancient history of Arunachal 
Pradesh as follows : 
"41. The history of the mountainous and multitribal 
north-east frontier region which is now known as 
Arunachal Pradesh ascends for hundreds of years 
into the mists of tradition and mythology. 
According to Pauranic legend, Rukmini, the 
daughter of King Bhishmak, was carried away on 
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 
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 
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 
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.