File Photo
Morung Express News
Dimapur | June 16
In a significant judgment with far-reaching implications for Nagaland’s regulatory and constitutional framework, the Gauhati High Court on Tuesday upheld the State Government’s decision to extend the Inner Line Permit (ILP) regime to Dimapur, Chümoukedima and Niuland districts, dismissing three Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging the move.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury ruled that the extension of ILP through the September 20, 2024 notification was legally valid and constitutionally sustainable.
Challenges
The PILs originally challenged four measures: the September 20, 2024 notification extending the Inner Line Permit (ILP) regime to Dimapur, Chümoukedima and Niuland; the May 27, 2025 notification prescribing documentary requirements for obtaining ILP; the Nagaland Land and Revenue Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1978; and the notification laying down criteria for issuance of Indigenous Inhabitant Certificates (IICs) under RIIN.
However, during the course of the hearing, the Court was informed that the challenges to the 1978 amendment and the IIC notification were not being pursued and the judgement was confined adjudication to the ILP-related notifications.
Concerning ILP and its extension, petitioners argued that the notifications violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, contending that restrictions on movement, residence and economic activity could only be imposed through legislation and not executive notifications.
They further maintained that the colonial-era Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation (BEFR), 1873 could not be relied upon to curtail constitutional freedoms in contemporary India.
A key plank of the challenge was that Dimapur had remained outside the ILP regime for decades to facilitate trade, commerce and economic integration.
According to the petitioners, the State had failed to place sufficient empirical material on record to justify reversing that long-standing policy.
BEFR operates as a valid law
However, the Court held that the ILP regime derives its authority from the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation (BEFR), 1873, which continues to operate as a valid law under Article 372 of the Constitution.
“The impugned notifications derive authority from the Regulation and cannot be characterised as a mere executive fiat,” the Bench observed.
The Court rejected the argument that the colonial-era BEFR could no longer serve as the legal basis for regulating entry into Nagaland.
It ruled that laws existing before the Constitution continue to remain in force unless repealed or struck down and that the Regulation retains full legal validity through constitutional adaptation.
The judgment extensively examined the historical and constitutional foundations of the Inner Line system, noting that Nagaland’s special constitutional position under Article 371A forms part of the context in assessing the reasonableness of such measures.
Addressing challenges under Article 19, the Court observed that the ILP regime does not prohibit entry into the concerned districts but merely introduces a permit-based regulatory mechanism.
It held that regulation of movement through permits is constitutionally permissible when supported by law and pursued for legitimate objectives, including protection of indigenous communities and public interest.
The Bench further ruled that concerns relating to migration, demographic change, preservation of indigenous interests and regional security fall within the ambit of “general public interest” under Article 19(5).
On allegations of arbitrariness under Article 14, the Court held that governments are not constitutionally bound to adhere indefinitely to past policy choices. It observed that changing demographic, administrative and security considerations could justify policy shifts over time.
The Court also noted that the State had placed before it committee reports, departmental deliberations and Cabinet decisions that preceded the extension of ILP, indicating that the decision was not taken in an evidentiary vacuum.
Acknowledges history
Meanwhile, one of the PILs had been filed on behalf of Dimasa and Karbi communities from neighbouring districts of Assam, who argued that the permit requirement would adversely affect long-standing familial, cultural and historical ties with Dimapur.
While acknowledging the historical association of Dimapur with the Kachari Kingdom and the continued links across the inter-state boundary, the Court held that such considerations could not override existing constitutional arrangements.
“Constitutional adjudication proceeds on existing constitutional arrangements rather than on competing claims of historical sovereignty,” it held.
At the same time, the Bench recorded an assurance given by Nagaland Advocate General K N Balgopal that applicants from Cachar, Hailakandi, Dima Hasao and Karbi Anglong districts would not be required to produce a final NRC document for ILP-related processes.
Instead, NRC ‘Receipt of claim”, which displays the details of an individual applicant for NRC registration, with an ARN number generated bearing ARN numbers would be accepted as sufficient documentation.
Summarising its conclusions, the Court held that the BEFR, 1873 remains valid law; the challenged notifications were issued under statutory authority; the extension of ILP to Dimapur, Chümoukedima and Niuland was neither arbitrary nor violative of Articles 14 and 19; and the objections based on Article 371A, historical claims and lack of quantifiable data did not warrant judicial interference.
Accordingly, all three PILs were dismissed, and any interim orders earlier granted stood vacated.
.jpg)
