Court dismisses PILs challenging 2024 notification; says ILP regime is backed by law and serves legitimate public and tribal interests
The Gauhati High Court has upheld the extension of the Inner Line Permit (ILP) regime to Dimapur, Chümoukedima and Niuland, dismissing a batch of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) that challenged the Nagaland government’s September 20, 2024 notification.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice AD Choudhury held that the extension of the ILP system was legally valid, was backed by the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873, and did not violate Articles 14, 19 or 21 of the Constitution.
The petitions had challenged the extension of the ILP regime to the three districts, arguing that it imposed restrictions on movement and residence through executive action and infringed fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
Rejecting the contention, the court held that the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873 continues to have the force of law by virtue of Article 372 of the Constitution and that the impugned notifications were issued under powers conferred by that legislation.
“The notification does not create the inner-line system, nor does it introduce a regulatory framework previously unknown to the law,” the court observed, adding that the notification merely extends and operationalises a mechanism that has existed for more than a century.
The bench also rejected arguments that the extension of ILP to Dimapur after decades of exemption was arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
Referring to the petitioners’ reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in M Nagaraj, the court said the requirement of quantifiable data arose in the specific context of reservation policies and could not be applied to the extension of a pre-existing statutory framework such as the ILP system.
The judgment noted that committee reports, departmental deliberations and successive Cabinet decisions preceded the government’s decision to extend the ILP regime to Dimapur, Chümoukedima and Niuland.
“The record discloses that the decision was preceded by institutional consideration at multiple levels of government and was not taken in an evidentiary vacuum,” the court observed.
The bench further held that concerns relating to migration, public security, demographic changes and the protection of indigenous communities could legitimately be taken into account while assessing the public interest behind the measure.
Addressing submissions made by petitioners from the Dimasa and Karbi communities, the court acknowledged the historical association of Dimapur with the Kachari Kingdom and the cultural and familial ties maintained across present-day state boundaries.
However, it held that constitutional adjudication must proceed on existing constitutional arrangements rather than historical claims.
“The historical association of Dimapur with the Kachari Kingdom cannot by itself determine the outcome of the present proceeding,” the court said.
The court also addressed concerns over the requirement of NRC-related documents for applicants from neighbouring Assam districts.
During the hearing, the Nagaland government informed the court that applicants from Cachar, Hailakandi, Dima Hasao and Karbi Anglong would not be required to produce a final NRC registration document. Instead, a “Receipt of Claim” carrying an ARN number generated during the NRC process would be accepted for processing applications.
Recording the State government’s assurance, the court observed that the apprehensions raised by the petitioners on that issue stood substantially addressed.
Summarising its findings, the court held that the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873 remains valid law, that the impugned notifications derive authority from it, and that the extension of the ILP regime to Dimapur, Chümoukedima and Niuland is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional.
The PILs were accordingly dismissed and all interim orders, if any, were vacated.
