Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Doctor's assistance. Paramanand Katra v. Union of India.

12. Shelter. Shantistar Builders v. N.K. Totame.

30. In the case of National Human Rights Commission, (for short, N.H.R.C.) v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with the obligation of the State to protect the life and liberty of non-citizens also. The question was of rehabilitation of the Chakma refugees, who were settled in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. They were asked by a group of persons (All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union) to leave the State. The N.H.R.C. filed a petition under Article 32 to the Apex Court seeking to enforce the right of about 65000 Chakma/Hajong tribals. The Chakmas were formerly from the erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and were displaced by Kaptai Hydel Power Project in 1964. The question of grant of citizenship to the Chakmas was pending the consideration of the Central Government. Since the Chakma refugees apprehended their forcible expulsion from the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the N.H.R.C. approached the Apex Court contending that the right of the Chakmas guaranteed under Article 21 was violated. The first respondent State of Arunachal Pradesh contended that the State enjoyed a special status under the Constitution and having regard to its ethnicity, even the laws and regulations applicable during the British regime continued to apply. It was contended that the settlement of Chakmas in large numbers in Arunachal Pradesh would destroy its ethnic balance and its cultural identity and the special provision made in the Constitution for the State of Arunachal Pradesh would be set at naught. It was in this context that the Apex Court upheld the right of the refugees under Article 21 of the Constitution. The question as to whether the persons indulging in crimes claiming armed police protection round the clock did not arise for consideration of the Apex Court in the case of Chakma refugees. It was in the light of the pleadings of the N.H.R.C. and the State of Arunachal Pradesh that the Apex Court observed that our country was governed by rule of law and every person was entitled to equality before law and equal protection of laws. Thus, the State was bound to protect the life and liberty of every human being, be he a citizen or otherwise. No Stale Government can tolerate threats by one group of persons to another group of persons. H was in this context that the Apex Court gave certain directions in the operative part of the order protecting the Chakma refugees from forcible expulsion from the State of Arunachal Pradesh. We do not think that the ratio of either of the two decisions; Unnikrishnan J.P.'s case and Chakma refugees' case can apply to the facts of the case before us. The facts of Arun Gavli's case are gross, as indicated earlier.