Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: chakma in Daivid John Hopkins vs The Union Of India And Others on 28 July, 1997Matching Fragments
19. The decision , cited by Mr. K.P. Krishna Shetty, learned counsel for the appellant, deals with the case of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In that case. National Human Rights Commission filed the writ petition seeking to enforce the rights of about 65,000 Chakma/Hajong tribats under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was alleged that these Chakmas, settled mainly in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. are being persecuted by sections of the citi/cns of Arunachal Pradesh. On 2-11-1995. the Supreme Court issued an interim order directing the State of Arunachal Pradesh to ensure that the Chakmas situated in its territory arc not ousted by any coercive action, not in accordance with law. The State of Arunachal Pradesh in its counter contended before the Supreme Court that the allegations of violation of human rights are incorrect and that it has taken bona fide and sincere steps towards providing the Chakmas with basic amenities and has. to the best of its ability, protected their lives and properties. It was also contended that since Chakmas arc foreigners, they are not entitled to the protection of fundamental rights except Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court refused to accept the contention of the State of Arunachal Pradesh that no threat exists to the life and liberty of the Chakmas guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and that it has taken adequate steps to ensure the protection of the Chakmas. The Supreme Court also held that there exists a clear and present danger to the lives and personal liberty of the Chakmas after referring to the judgment in (Louis De Racdt. v. Union of India), and Khudiram Chakma's case where in the Supreme court has held that foreigners arc entitled to the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of their long and prolonged stay in the State, the Chakmas, who migrated to and those horn in the State, seek citizenship under the Constitution read with Section 5 of the Act. The Supreme Court issued certain directions to the authorities constituted under Rule 8 of the Rules, which empowered to register a person as a citizen of India. In the concluding portion the Apex Court has heId as follows :