The ILP system constitutes a reasonable regulatory mechanism, requiring only that entry or stay in the State be supported by proper documentation.
Share
Article 19 of the Constitution of India guarantees certain fundamental freedoms to Indian citizens. In the context of the recent implementation of the Inner Line Permit (ILP) system in the districts of Dimapur, Niuland, and Chümoukedima, the relevant provisions are Articles 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e), and 19(5) of the Constitution, which are reproduced as follows:
• Article 19(1)(d): Freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India;
• Article 19(1)(e): Freedom to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India;
• Article 19(5): Nothing in sub-clauses (d) and (e) shall affect the operation of any existing law insofar as it imposes, or prevents the State from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of these rights in the interest of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe.
Articles 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e) provides for freedom of movement and residence throughout India. However, Articles 19(5) allows for reasonable restrictions on the rights to freedom of movement and residence, especially to protect the interest of scheduled tribes. This means that while citizens have the right to move and reside freely throughout India, the State can impose restrictions to safeguard the unique culture, traditions and economic well-being of tribal communities. Accordingly, the implementation of ILP in the State of Nagaland, a recognised tribal state, must be examined particularly in light of Article 19(5), which permits reasonable restrictions in the interest of Scheduled Tribes.
The ILP system derives its legitimacy from the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873 (BEFR), a colonial-era legislation enacted to safeguard the indigenous populations of certain northeastern regions. It serves as a protective mechanism aimed at preserving the ethnic identity, cultural practices and traditional livelihoods of indigenous communities. This regulation is still in force and continues to apply to the State of Nagaland. Furthermore, Clause 4 of Section 6B of the Citizenship Act, 1955, specifically states that the provisions of that section shall not apply to the tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, or Tripura as listed under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, or to areas notified under the ILP system governed by the BEFR, 1873. It may also be noted that the legality of the BEFR, 1873 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court but the same was rejected and dismissed.
With specific reference to Dimapur, Clause 4 of the Notification dated 27.05.2025 classifies residents into three categories:
1. Exempted Category 1: Citizens who settled in Dimapur before 01.12.1963 are exempt from the ILP requirement.
2. Exempted Category 2: Citizens who settled between 02.12.1963 and 21.11.1979 are also exempt.
3. Mandatory ILP Category: All individuals seeking to enter or settle in Dimapur on or after 22.11.1979 are required to obtain an ILP.
Dimapur, being the commercial nucleus of Nagaland and well-connected by air and rail, plays a pivotal economic role. The application of ILP in such a region is therefore a matter of critical importance for balanced and sustainable development.
Notably, as per the Land Revenue Department Notification No. LR/2-11/76 dated 21.11.1979, the Nagas, Kukis, Kacharis, Garos and Mikirs have been officially recorded as the predominant indigenous communities of Dimapur. Consequently, tribal belt boundaries were demarcated across the region.
While the reintroduction and enforcement of the ILP system in Dimapur have generated varied public opinions, it is essential to understand its objectives. The ILP regime is not a violation of fundamental rights; rather, it is a constitutionally sanctioned mechanism designed to uphold the interests and welfare of the Scheduled Tribes and the general public, as provided under Article 19(5).
At this point, it is necessary for every responsible citizen to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable restrictions. For example, purchasing a ticket to enter a cinema, undergoing decontamination before entering a secure area, or restrictions in military zones are all forms of reasonable regulation. Similarly, the ILP system constitutes a reasonable regulatory mechanism, requiring only that entry or stay in the State be supported by proper documentation.
The Constitution must be read harmoniously, and its provisions interpreted in a manner that preserves social balance and order. Without reasonable restrictions, societal function and constitutional order would deteriorate. The State must therefore be commended for taking this proactive and constitutionally valid step to implement ILP. As such, it is crucial for all to understand that the ILP is not meant to prohibit entry or residence in Nagaland but to regulate it through lawful and transparent means for the larger benefit of its indigenous population of Nagaland.
C Talimoa
Chief Advisor, Nagaland Law Students' Federation.