Migration Jurisprudence from the South › India
National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh
Supreme Court of India · India · 1996-01-09 · National court
Citation: (1996) 1 SCC 742
Type of case: Constitutional and human rights
Outcome: Decided for the migrant side
Question
Must the state protect Chakma refugees threatened with forced eviction by local groups?
What the court decided
Yes. The state must protect the life and liberty of every person, including non-citizens, and must process their citizenship applications.
In plain language
Chakma families who had lived in Arunachal Pradesh for decades were threatened with being driven out. The Supreme Court ordered the state to protect them and to deal with their citizenship claims.
Dalam bahasa sederhana
Keluarga Chakma yang puluhan tahun tinggal di Arunachal Pradesh diancam diusir. MA memerintahkan negara bagian melindungi mereka dan memproses permohonan kewarganegaraan mereka.
Pertanyaan: Wajibkah negara melindungi pengungsi Chakma yang diancam diusir paksa oleh kelompok setempat?
What happened afterwards
- 1996-01-09: Protection ordered.
- 2015: Supreme Court orders citizenship to be granted. [Check.]
Sources
Open this decision in the interactive collection (compare, filter, Indonesian view, downloads).
Cite as: Institute for Migrant Rights (2026), Migration Jurisprudence from the South, version 0.1, https://theimr.org/court-decisions/d/in-chakma-1996/. This page summarizes a court decision for research and advocacy; it is not legal advice.