Arunachal Pradesh officials warned against violating Supreme Court judgment on Chakma-Hajong issue
A rights activist and member of the core group of the National Human Rights Commission has warned officials in Arunachal Pradesh against violating the Supreme Court's 1996 judgment, seeking the protection of the rights of all Chakma and Hajong people living in the State since the 1960s.
Senior officials and District Magistrates in Arunachal Pradesh could face contempt of court if they held a meeting with representatives of the All Arunachal Pradesh Students' Union (AAPSU) on the contentious Chakma-Hajong issue, Suhas Chakma, also director of the Delhi-based Rights and Risks Analysis Group, said.
In a notification on July 3, the State's Home Department called for a meeting with the AAPSU on Tuesday (July 8, 2025) with a three-point agenda — deportation of illegal immigrants, review and rectification of the voter list/electoral roll, and land records and encroachment by Chakma-Hajong settlers.
Also Read | Chakmas and Hajongs: The peoples without a state
The apex court, in its judgment on January 9, 1996, directed the Arunachal Pradesh government to protect the life and personal liberty of each Chakma and Hajong person residing within the State from organised groups, Mr. Chakma said. The Supreme Court also said that quit notices issued by any group, 'which tantamount to threats to the life and liberty' of the communities concerned, 'should be dealt with in accordance with the law'.
'Instead of complying with this direction, the State government has made AAPSU a part of the government decision-making by inviting it to the official meeting to be held on July 8. A non-state actor being invited to the official meeting for decision-making is unheard of, and non est in law,' Mr. Chakma said.
'It amounts to making a non-state actor act as the complainant, judge, jury, and executioner. This is in absolute contravention of basic tenets of the rule of law, including Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and most importantly, in contempt of the Supreme Court's 1996 judgment. No court shall take such indiscretion lightly,' he said.
The rights activist also reminded the State government of the apex court's ruling, which says that 'while the application of any individual Chakma is pending consideration', the Arunachal Pradesh government 'shall not evict or remove the concerned person from his occupation on the ground that he is not a citizen of India until the competent authority has taken a decision on that behalf'.
The Arunachal Pradesh government did not process a single citizenship application, as directed by the Supreme Court, Mr. Chakma said. 'Instead, the government is taking decisions to remove the Chakmas and Hajongs from their occupations, and evict them,' he added.
Displaced by a dam and religious persecution in the erstwhile East Pakistan, the primarily Buddhist Chakmas, and the Hindu Hajongs were settled in a few pockets of Arunachal Pradesh between 1964 and 1969. The final count of the refugees was 14,888.
In September 2015, the Supreme Court sought citizenship for the approximately 7,000 Chakma-Hajong people who were alive at the time.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
40 minutes ago
- The Print
Apologise for scurrilous remarks against Telangana HC judge: SC to litigant, lawyer
The case stems from a transfer petition filed by N Peddi Raju, alleging bias and impropriety against the high court judge who quashed a criminal case under the SC/ST Act against Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy. A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Atul S Chandurkar was hearing a suo motu contempt plea when it observed allegations against high court judges were contemptuous and could not be condoned. New Delhi, Aug 11 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Monday directed a litigant and his lawyers to tender an unconditional apology to a Telangana High Court judge against whom they levelled 'scurrilous allegations'. 'We cannot permit judges to be put in a box and allow any litigant to make such allegations. Judges of the High Courts are constitutional functionaries with the same respect and immunity as Supreme Court judges,' the CJI said. Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for a contempt notice, tendered an 'unconditional and unreserved apology' and explained the circumstances in which the statements were made. The CJI, however, noted such conduct had become a 'disturbing trend' where lawyers and litigants questioned the integrity of judges in politically sensitive matters. Citing a Constitution bench judgment, the CJI said it was held both litigants and lawyers could be held guilty of contempt for making scandalous allegations against judges. The bench directed for the already disposed of matter to be reopened in the Telangana High Court and placed before the judge concerned within a week aside from ordering the petitioner before it to furnish an unconditional apology before the judge. The judge would then decide within a week whether to accept the apology, it added. The CJI also referred to a recent ruling by a three-judge bench that favoured accepting apologies in such situations over punitive action, saying 'wisdom lies in forgiving rather than punishing'. On July 29, the apex court issued contempt notices to Peddi Raju, his advocate-on-record Ritesh Patil, and other lawyers involved, refusing to allow them to withdraw the petition and said, 'We cannot permit judges to be out in a box and allow any litigant to make such allegations against a judge. Here we were trying to protect lawyers.' It was hearing a transfer plea filed by Raju filed through Patil. 'Scurrilous allegations have been made against the sitting judge of Telangana High Court. It has been held (in a judgement) that it is not only a litigant but also a lawyer who signs (the petition) is guilty of contempt of court,' the court said. While directing for them to furnish an apology, the bench noted it would consider whether to accept it or not. 'We will see if the apology is genuine or not. When we expressed displeasure at the language, liberty was sought to withdraw. We dismissed the request,' it said. The case stems from the high court's decision to quash a criminal case against the chief minister under the SC/ST Act. The petitioner later moved the top court with a transfer plea, alleging bias and impropriety on the part of the high court judge. PTI SJK SJK AMK AMK This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
SC confirms activist Medha Patkar's conviction in defamation case by Delhi LG VK Sexena
The Supreme Court on Monday confirmed the conviction of activist Medha Patkar in a 25-year-old defamation case filed by Delhi LG V K Saxena. The high court on July 29 upheld the conviction and punishment awarded to 70-year-old Patkar. Saxena filed the case 25 years ago when he was heading an NGO in Gujarat.(HT Photo) A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh said it was not inclined to interfere with the Delhi high court order on the matter that released Medha Patkar on "probation of good conduct" but required her to appear before the trial court once every three years. It added, "However, taking into consideration the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, the penalty imposed stands set aside and we further clarify that the supervision order will not be given effect." The high court on July 29 upheld the conviction and punishment awarded to 70-year-old Patkar. Saxena filed the case 25 years ago when he was heading an NGO in Gujarat. The high court had said there was illegality or material irregularity in the findings of the trial court and added that the order of conviction was passed after due consideration of evidence and the applicable law. It had said that Patkar failed to demonstrate any defects in the procedure which was followed or any error in the law which resulted in the miscarriage of justice. The high court also upheld the order on sentence, where Patkar was released on "probation of good conduct", and said it did not require any interference. Probation is a method of non-institutional treatment of offenders and a conditional suspension of sentence in which the offender, after conviction, is released on bond of good behaviour instead of being sent to prison. The high court, however, had modified the condition of probation imposed by the trial court, requiring Patkar to appear before the trial court once in every three months, and allowed her to either appear physically or through videoconferencing or be represented through the lawyer during the appearances. The Narmada Bachao Andolan leader challenged the April 2 sessions court order upholding her conviction handed out by a magisterial court in the case. The sessions court, which upheld Patkar's conviction in the case, released her on "probation of good conduct" on furnishing a probation bond of ₹25,000 on April 8 and imposed a precondition on her of depositing ₹1 lakh as fine. The magisterial court on July 1, 2024 sentenced Patkar to five months of simple imprisonment and slapped a ₹10 lakh fine after finding her guilty under Section 500 (defamation) of the IPC. Saxena filed the case as president of the National Council of Civil Liberties against Patkar for her defamatory press release against Saxena issued on November 24, 2000. On May 24, 2024, the magisterial court held that that Patkar's statements were not only per se defamatory but also "crafted to incite negative perceptions" about him. The accusation that the complainant was "mortgaging" the people of Gujarat and their resources to foreign interests was a direct attack on his integrity and public service, it had said. On April 2, the sessions court had dismissed a challenge to the order and held Patkar was "rightly convicted" and there was "no substance" in the appeal against the verdict of her conviction in the defamation case.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
SC order shows path to free Delhi from fear of rabies, stray animals: Kapil Mishra
Following the Supreme Court's directions to municipal bodies in Delhi-NCR to pick up stray dogs and move them to shelters, Delhi Development Minister Kapil Mishra said the government's Animal Husbandry department will work with all agencies to study the order and ensure its proper implementation. In a post on X, he wrote: 'Supreme Court's order shows a path to free Delhi from the fear of rabies and stray animals.' Issuing directions to the Delhi government, civic bodies, and authorities of Noida, Gurgaon, and Ghaziabad, the top court Monday noted that the 'situation' arising out of the menace is 'grim' and 'immediate steps need to be taken' to address it. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan asked the authorities, including the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC), to immediately do the needful, build shelters, and report about the creation of infrastructure to the court within eight weeks. The SC had taken suo motu cognizance of the matter last month based on a news report. 'If any individual or organisation comes in the way of picking stray dogs or rounding them up, we will proceed to take action against any such resistance,' it added. According to the MCD, 65,000 dog bite cases have been reported till July. The figure was 74,000 in 2024, including pet dog bite cases. It was 57,000 in 2023; however, pet dog bite cases were not registered that year. The MCD has a total of 20 shelters across Delhi, where NGOs carry out sterilisation of dogs, according to the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023. The Rules also mandate that the animal needs to be released back in the same locality after sterilisation. According to the MCD officials, around 65,000 dogs have been sterilised and immunised till July 31. This number was 1,31,137 in 2024, around 80,000 in 2023, 59,000 in 2022 and 91,000 in 2021. The official also added that since 2023, around 57 MCD wards have achieved a target of 70%-80% sterilisation as per ABC Rules. Earlier this month, a sub-committee formed by the MCD's Standing Committee had planned to carry out a dog census soon, amid an outcry over rising cases of stray dog bites raised by the councillors of several wards.
