AMAL KUMAR CHAKMA Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, assisted by Ms. P. Pangu, learned Junior Government Advocate, representing respondent nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5, Mr. A. Apang, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. N. Anju, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.2 and Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6.

(2.) The 9 (nine) petitioners herein claim themselves to be members of Chakma and Hajong communities, who are residing in the State of Arunachal Pradesh since birth. They claim themselves to be citizens of India. It is also claimed that although the petitioners are voters for Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies, the State respondents are adopting discriminatory attitude against the petitioners and other members of their community and thereby the petitioners have been illegally deprived of their right to participate in Panch-ayat Elections in the State in respect of their respective villages. Accordingly, by filing this PIL under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, for a direction to the respondent no. 2 to notify/ declare the 46 Chakma and Hajong villages in Changlang, Namsai and Papum Pare Districts as Gram Panchayats/ Anchal Samiti/ Zila Parishad Constituencies under the provisions of Arunachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1997 (Act V of 2001) (hereinafter referred to as the "1997 Act" for brevity), further directing the respondent no. 2 to include the members of the Chakma and Hajong community in the electoral rolls for the purpose of such elections.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted while he is placing reliance on the herein below mentioned cases, but on facts, their case is distinguishable from the facts on which the following cases were decided, viz., (i) State of Arunachal Pradesh Vs. Khudiram Chakma, (1994) Supp (1) SCC 615, (ii) Committee for CR of CAP and Ors. Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors., AIR 2015 SC 3750: 2015 (5) GLT 1, (iii) National Human Rights Commission Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors., (1996) 1 SCC 742 and some other cases were decided. It is submitted that the point of difference is that while in other cases, the Court was considering rights of the Chakma and Hajong people flowing from Sec. 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 but in the present case, the petitioners are claiming rights flowing to them and to other people from Chakma and Hajong communities under Sec. 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 as they are born within the territory of India.