STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH versus KHUDIRAM CHAKMA

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 401 · Decided: 27-04-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

Al'. 
STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH 
A 
v. 
KHUDIRAM CHAKMA 
APRIL 27, 1993 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ ANDS. MOHANJ.) 
B 
The citizenship Act, 1955: 
Section 6A-Citizenship of persons covered by Assam Accord-Persons of 
Indian origin known as Chakmas-Migrated to State of Assam from specified 
territory before 1.1. 1966-Shifted to Arunachal Pradesh in 1966 and residing c 
there since then-Held, cannot be regarded as.citizens of India. 
Foreigners Act, 1946, 
,._.-
Sectron 3; 
Foreigners' Order, 1948, 
Clause 9 (2); 
Foreigners Protection Order, 1958; 
D 
The Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873, Clause 7: Government's 
power to declare any region as protected area- Prohibition on acquisition of 
land or any interest thereon by foreigners within protected area-Chakina 
E 
refugees-Donation of lcmd by local Raja within inner line in State of Arunacha/ 
Pradesh-Held, the donation deed was illegal . 
. Constit11tion of India, 1950: 
Articles 14, 19( 1 )-(d), (e)-Rights to mavefreely throughout the territof)' 
of India and to reside and settle any part therein-Held, rights not avaliable to 
F 
foreigners-Settling Ghakmas in a particular place is ,a-matter of poliq•-Court 
cannot enter into wisdom of such policy. 
The appellant in Civil Appe?I No: 481 of 1983, and thousands of other 
families, known as Chakmas, migrated from the erstwhile East Pakistan to 
Assam where they were given shelter as refugees in 1964. In the year 1966 the 
Government drew ·up the Chakma resettlement ,Schemes whereunder they 
were allotted lands within the North East Frontier Agency, which later 
became State of Arunachal Pradesh. The appellant and 56 other Chakma 
families strayed away from the original settlement area and negotiated with 
the local Raja who through an unregistered deed donated land to them inside 
G 
the inner line which was a protected area under the Foreigners' Protection 
H 
Area Order 1958. Later, the State Govenment received complaint.'> that the 
401 
402 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1993) 3 S.G:.R. 
A 
Chakmas were making encroachment on lands of local people, indulging in 
illegal collection of arms and ammunition and establishing contacts with the 
extremist groups. An inquiry into the matter was directed. The Government 
found it necessary to shift them, and by order dated 15.2.1984 directed the 
appellant and the other Chakma families to vacate the land and to shift to the 
B 
c 
. original settlement area where other Chakma families were already residing. 
The appellant challenged the order before the High Court by filing a writ 
petition which was dismissed. However, the High Court, on humanitarian 
grounds, directed the State Government to give adequate compensation to the 
Chakmas. Both, the appellant and the State Government filed the appeals by 
special leave. 
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant and the 
other Chakmas being oflndian origin and having returned to Assam State in 
1964, would be entitled to citizenship under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 
1955, and by mere accident of their going to Arunachal Pradesh they cannot 
lose their citizenship; and that the order dated 15.2.1984, besides being 
D against the principles ofnatunal justice, was vi~lative of Article 14 of ttie 
Constitution as it infringed the rights of the appellant and other Chakmas 
under Articles 19(1) (d) and (e) of the Constitution. 
Dismissing the appeal on behalf of the Chakmas and allowing that of the 
E 
State, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1 The appellant and other Chakmas residing in Arunachal 
Pradesh long before 1985 cannot be regarded as citizens of India. [420- Hl 
1.2 Under Section 6-A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which was incorpo-
F 
rated by the Amending Act, 1985 as a result of Assam Accord, two conditions 
are required to be satisfied: (1) Persons of Indian origin (undivided India) 
who came before 1.1.1966 to Assam from the specified territory; and (2) they 
have been "ordinarily resident" in Assam as it existed in 1985 since their date 
of entry in Assam. (411G-H;412-A] 
G 
1.3 Though the appellant and other Chakmas were of Indian origin and 
came to Assam prior to 1.1.1966 from the then East Pakistan, one of the 
specified territories but, in 1966 they shifted to the area within North East 
Frontier Agency which later became State of Arunachal Pradesh, and at no 
time was part of the Territory of t~e State of Assam though was being 
H 
administered by the Go\•ernors of Assam or the President oflndi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.