Gauhati High Court upholds extension of Inner Line Permit regime to Dimapur, Chümoukedima and Niuland.
Share
DIMAPUR — The Gauhati High Court has upheld the extension of the Inner Line Permit (ILP) regime to Dimapur, Chümoukedima and Niuland, ruling that the move is supported by law and is not violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury dismissed three public interest litigations challenging the Nagaland government's September 20, 2024 notification extending the ILP regime to the three districts, along with a subsequent notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Dimapur prescribing documentary requirements for obtaining ILP.
In its judgment delivered on Tuesday, the court held that the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873, under which the ILP system operates, continues to have the force of law by virtue of Article 372 of the Constitution.
"The Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873, continues to constitute law by virtue of Article 372 of the Constitution of India," the bench observed.
Also read: Nagaland: Online ILP system generates over INR 2.7 crore revenue
The petitioners had argued that the extension of the ILP regime imposed restrictions on movement and residence through executive action and infringed constitutional rights. Petitioners from Assam's Dimasa and Karbi communities also challenged the documentary requirements for obtaining ILP, contending that the permit regime would create hardship for people maintaining historical, familial and cultural ties with Dimapur.
Rejecting the challenge, the court held that the impugned notifications derive authority from the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation and cannot be treated as mere executive action.
The bench observed that the notification does not prohibit entry into Dimapur, Chümoukedima or Niuland, nor permanently exclude citizens from residing in those districts, but introduces a permit-based regulatory mechanism.
It further held that the measure pursues constitutionally permissible objectives and adopts a regulatory rather than prohibitory framework.
The court noted the state's contention that effective implementation of the ILP regime was necessary to address concerns relating to migration, public security, public safety, law and order, and the protection of indigenous interests.
Addressing arguments that Dimapur had remained outside the operational framework of the ILP regime for decades, the bench observed that governments are not permanently bound by earlier policy choices.
The court stated that social, economic, demographic and administrative realities evolve over time, and that concerns relating to migration, administration or security may subsequently assume greater significance.
It further held that the state's reasons for extending the ILP regime could not be described as irrational or unrelated to the objectives of the Regulation.
On the challenge raised by petitioners from Assam, the court held that historical associations with the former Kachari kingdom and continuing social and cultural ties could not by themselves determine the constitutional validity of the notification.
The bench observed that the notification does not prohibit members of the Dimasa or Karbi communities from entering Dimapur, but requires compliance with a permit regime applicable to those who do not fall within exempted categories.
The court also addressed concerns over NRC-related documentation for applicants from neighbouring districts of Assam.
Recording a statement made by Advocate General KN Balgopal on behalf of the Nagaland government, the bench noted that authorities would not insist on production of a final NRC registration document from applicants belonging to Cachar, Hailakandi, Dima Hasao and Karbi Anglong districts.
Instead, a "receipt of claim" generated during the NRC process and carrying the applicant's ARN number would be treated as sufficient for processing applications.
The court held that the extension of the ILP regime to Dimapur, Chümoukedima and Niuland was neither manifestly arbitrary nor violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
The bench accordingly dismissed all three PILs and vacated any interim orders.