NHRC vs Arunachal Pradesh (1996): A Landmark in Refugee Protection
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 1996 SCC (1) 742
|
Judges: B.L. Hansaria & Justice S.C. Sen
LawPGLU | 31 Oct 2025
Background of the Case:
Chakma refugees, a Buddhist minority group from Bangladesh, arrived in Arunachal Pradesh during the 1960s after facing persecution in what was then East Pakistan. The Indian government granted them permission to settle in Arunachal Pradesh. Over time, tensions began to rise between the local population and the refugees. Some political groups started demanding the removal of the Chakmas from the state, denying them ration and basic rights. As the situation escalated, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) took notice and filed a petition in the Supreme Court to protect the fundamental rights of the Chakma refugees.
Main Issue Before the Court:
The key questions before the court were:
- Can the State of Arunachal Pradesh and its officials forcibly remove the Chakma refugees?
- Do the Chakmas have protection under Article 21 (Right to Life) even though they are not Indian citizens?
- Does the NHRC have the authority to intervene in such cases?
Arguments:
The NHRC argued that refugees are entitled to human rights, and forcibly removing them would violate Articles 21 and 14. The State Government contended that since these individuals are non-citizens, they should not be granted political rights. However, the court clarified that basic human rights are applicable to everyone, regardless of their citizenship status.
Judgment (Decision):
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NHRC. The court stated:
– The Chakmas possess the Right to Life and Liberty (Article 21), irrespective of their citizenship status.
– The state government cannot forcibly remove them.
– Both the Central and State governments have a constitutional duty to ensure their safety and dignity.
– The NHRC was recognized as an important watchdog capable of taking action against human rights violations.
Key Takeaways:
Protection of Refugees’ Human Rights: The court affirmed that Article 21 (Right to Life) applies to all individuals, regardless of their citizenship.
State’s Duty: The state must ensure that no refugee faces violence or discrimination.
Empowerment of NHRC: This case enhanced the NHRC’s constitutional credibility in protecting human rights.
Humanitarian Approach: The court emphasized that India, as a civilized nation, should uphold human values.
Result:
The Chakma refugees were granted permission to reside in Arunachal Pradesh. The state was ordered to protect them from harassment. This case has become a significant milestone in India’s journey towards safeguarding human rights and refugee protection.
Related Image Suggestions:
– A photo of the Supreme Court of India building with the Indian flag.
– A group of Chakma refugees in Arunachal Pradesh.
– The NHRC logo with a justice scale in the background.
LawPGLU