The Election Commission of India in the light of judgment of this Court 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 number forwarded the applications as required under Rule 9 of the Citizenship Rules to the Central Government.
The Committees also recommends that all the old applications of Chakmas for citizenship which have either been rejected or withheld by Deputy Commissioners or the State Deputy Commissioner or the State Government companytinue to block the forwarding of such applications to Central Government, the Central Government may companysider to incorporate necessary provision in the Rules or the Act it so required whereby it companyld directly receive, companysider and decide the application for citizenship in the 23 case of Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh.
They have been settled after a companyscious decision at the highest level of the Government of India.
The laws applicable in the State of Arunachal Pradesh like the Government of India Act, 1870, the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873, the Scheduled District Act, 1874, the Assam Frontier Tract Regulation, 1880, the Assam Frontier Forest Regulation, 1891, the Chin Hills Regulations, 1896 and the Assam Frontier Administration of Justice Regulation, 1945 1 of 1945 were number taken into account.
In the judgment of the Gauhati High Court, it was numbered that in companytradiction to those unwanted illegal migrants who sneak into the companyntry, the Chakmas migrated to India on account of their displacement and the Government of India agreed to grant them citizenship.
Another writ petition being Writ Petition No.13 of 1998 against the judgment of this Court was dismissed on 9th December, 2002.
It is further stated that Chakmas and Hajong tribes were settled in NEFA from 1964 to 1969 when there were numberelected bodies in the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
On 20th January, 2014, this Court passed the following Order List the matter on 5th May, 2014, so as to enable the Joint High Powered Committee companystituted vide Government of Indias Order No.13/2/2010 NE II dated 10/08/2010.
The recommendation is as follows 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 Chakmas be also companysidered for granting them the status of Scheduled Tribes at the time of granting the citizenship.
Having regard to the decision of this Court in National Human Rights Commission Vs.
When the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 1st August, 2012, the following order was passed Mr. B. Bhattacharyya, learned Additional Solicitor General for respondent No.
The said Committee in its 105th Report published on 14th August, 1997 made recommendation to grant Indian Citizenship to the Chakmas but the said recommendation has number been acted upon.
The petitioners have filed a rejoinder affidavit alleging that children of Chakmas and Hajongs are denied educational facilities.
One thousand four hundred ninety seven Chakmas have been included in the electoral rolls.
The Committee also recommends that those Chakmas who have been born in India should also be companysidered for Indian citizenship.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the Union of India stating that the applications directly received by the Ministry of Home Affairs were forwarded to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh which had number been returned except few applications with negative recommendations.
They presented a petition to the 10th Lok Sabha and also to Rajya Sabha Committee on Petitions.
Thereafter applications were filed for citizenship but the same were number acted upon.
The stand of the State of Arunachal Pradesh is that there was numberthreat to the life and liberty of the Chakmas and Hajong refugees.
Though the popular sentiment of the indigenous tribals was different, the State of Arunachal Pradesh was honouring the order of this Court.
The said applications were returned back to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh.
Ministry of Home Affairs had advised the Government of Arunachal Pradesh to act in companypliance with the judgment of this Court.
The State of Arunachal Pradesh had received 4382 applications.
After receiving the judgment of this Court, the judgment was circulated to Inspector General of Police, Deputy Commissioners of the companycerned Districts and Principal Chief Conservator of Forests.
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 Jointly.
The State Government was fully bound by the direction of this Court and had taken all necessary steps to companyply with the same.
They were number being companyered by the public distribution system.
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 number made to the appropriate authority in prescribed form and were also number accompanied with the recommendations of the State Government as per statutory requirement.
The Election Commission of India supported its guidelines with guidelines with reference to a judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 28th September, 2000 in W.P. No.886 of 2000 Peoples Union for Civil Liberties vs. Election Commission of India Ors.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
1 to 4, pray for some time to seek instructions and also to ensure that the companytroversy raised in the Writ Petition is resolved at the hands of the Central Government and the State Government at the earliest.
Again on 28th August, 2012, following order was passed Mr. B. Bhattacharyya, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent No.
5, and Mr. Anil Shrivastav, learned companynsel for respondent Nos.
to place on record the progress made in the matter.
