The Inner Line Regulation Commission (ILRC) of the Naga Students Federation (NSF) has termed the recent detection of over 600 Inner Line Pass (ILP) defaulters in Nagaland as evidence of a “prolonged systemic failure” rather than effective enforcement.
Referring to intensified checking by Nagaland Police on April 10 and 11, during which 436 and 208 defaulters were detected respectively, the ILRC–NSF said the figures indicate that a significant number of non-indigenous individuals had been residing, working, and even operating businesses in the state without valid ILPs for extended periods.
“This is not a law-and-order success – it is evidence of how deeply enforcement has failed over time,” the commission stated.
The ILRC-NSF also stressed that the correct legal term is “Inner Line Pass” and not “permit,” noting that the term “Pass” under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873 reflects a restrictive system of regulated entry. It argued that the casual use of the term “permit” has diluted both the intent of the law and its enforcement.
Raising concerns over the scale of violations, the commission said many of those detected were not recent entrants but had already embedded themselves within local economic systems, impacting local livelihoods while operating outside the legal framework.
It further held multiple authorities accountable, stating that district administrations, labour and trade licensing bodies, and municipal and town councils had enabled widespread non-compliance by failing to integrate ILP verification into routine regulatory processes.
ALSO READ | Nagaland Police intensifies ILP checking drive post-poll
“Enforcement cannot remain reactive or limited to occasional drives; it must be continuous, institutionalised, and verifiable,” the statement said, adding that a system enforced only in phases is effectively not enforced.
Calling for structural reforms, the ILRC–NSF proposed linking ILP verification with business licensing and employment, creation of a centralised digital database for real-time verification, and fixing accountability where lapses have occurred.
Stating that the Inner Line Pass (ILP) is not a symbolic safeguard but a legal instrument of protection, the commission questioned how long such violations had been allowed to persist unchecked and who should be held responsible.
