CASE ANALYSIS ON NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSSION V. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH (1996) BY: MAHI THAKUR, KISHAN PAVAN DAAGA & AKHIL R JAYAN
AUTHORED BY: MAHI THAKUR,
KISHAN PAVAN DAAGA
& AKHIL R JAYAN
This research focuses on the citizenship rights of the Chakma community
in Arunachal Pradesh, India. Examining the software of prison provisions,
particularly Articles 21 and 32, this research explores how those laws cope
with the challenges confronted by using the Chakma people following their
displacement in 1964 due to a mission. The paper also discusses the importance
of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and the Citizenship Act, 1955.This
study looks closely at a legal case called NHRC v. State of Arunachal
Pradesh. The NHRC plays a vital role in safeguarding Chakma people's
rights through legal channels, informed by precedents such as Louis De Raedt v.
Union of India and the Khudiram Chakma case. The study underscores deficiencies
in government and security measures to ensure the safety of the Chakma
community. We explore how important it is to find a good balance between the
rights of individual people and the safety of the whole country. The actions
taken by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) show how laws can make a
positive change in protecting people's rights. We suggest that the government
needs to be fair and responsible, making sure to take care of everyone's
rights. This case helps us understand the challenges around Chakma citizenship
rights and why it's crucial to have a fair and just approach.
INTRODUCTION
In the case of the National Human Rights Commission v. State of
Arunachal Pradesh, 1996[1] highlighted a few crucial questions
surrounding the citizenship rights of the Chakma and Hajong groups in Arunachal
Pradesh. This research paper delves into the legal battle, examining the
significance of essential rights, mainly Articles 21[2] and 32[3] of the Indian Constitution, the role of the National Human Rights
Commission (NHRC), the concept of the Rule of Law and writ of mandamus in the
context of this case.
In 1964, the development of the Kaptai Hydel Power Project resulted in
the displacement of around 65,000 Chakma and Hajong tribals. These displaced
individuals, originally from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), sought refuge in
Assam and Tripura, wherein they steadily assimilated into local communities and
became Indian residents. While a sizable Chakma populace found a brand new home
in Arunachal Pradesh, tensions among this group and certain neighbourhood
groups ultimately emerged.
Article 21, safeguarding the right to life and personal liberty, has
become paramount in shielding the Chakmas from arbitrary moves. The NHRC
intervened to ensure the country upheld this essential guarantee, utilising
Article 32, which empowers individuals to, without delay, method the Supreme
Court to enforce fundamental rights. Although the NHRC isn't an individual, its
authority beneath the Protection of Human Rights, Act probably enabled it to
document a public interest litigation on behalf of the Chakmas, highlighting
the powerful interaction between Articles 21 and 32.
The Protection of Human Rights Act, enacted in 1993, empowered the NHRC
to technique the Supreme Court concerning human rights violations. Section 18
of this Act granted the NHRC the authority to intervene in such instances,
aligning with its mandate to defend human rights. The case in all likelihood
revolved round Section five(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which
acknowledges descent into India through start, thereby acknowledging the
Chakmas as Indian citizens. The NHRC’s probable focus was on maintaining the
identity and documentation of the Chakmas’ citizenship rights under this act.
Focusing on the significance of the Rule of Law, the case affirmed that
every human inside India's borders is entitled to constitutional safety,
irrespective of ethnicity or nationality. While the judiciary played a
important position in ensuring justice for marginalized groups, the NHRC
strengthed its efforts by using making use of legal instruments such as the
writ of mandamus. This writ ought to have pressured the Government of Arunachal
Pradesh to satisfy its duty to sure the rights of the Chakmas as citizens.
This case underscores the importance of leveraging legal frameworks and
channels, such as the Citizenship Act and the writ of mandamus, within the
combat for human rights in India. It highlights the NHRC's potential to use
existing laws and legal tools to protect the rights of marginalised groups,
emphasising the critical role of prison activism in upholding human rights.
LITERATURE REVIEW
MIGRATION AND REFUGEE ISSUE BETWEEN
INDIA AND BANGLADESH, Chirantan Kumar (2009)[4]: This paper explores the task of migration and refugees between India and
Bangladesh, a complicated problem bound by using borders and countrywide
identity. Since the introduction of Pakistan in 1947, ongoing migration from
East Bengal (now Bangladesh) to India has brought about social and political
tensions. It addresses the challenges inherent in the India-Bangladesh
relationship and with the broader debate on how to deal with migrants from
Bangladesh.
SYMPOSIUM ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF
REFUGEES, B S Chimni (1994)[5]: This study paper delves into India's complex immigration scenario, that
specialises in Chakma refugees from Bangladesh's Chittagong Hill Tracts. The
Chakmas, often Buddhists, sought refuge in India, escaping persecution by
Bangladesh's security forces and the appearance of Muslim settlers. The
research takes a look at highlights of the unique demanding situations faced
with the aid of the Chakmas, presenting insight into the complex dynamics of
their displacement and how it impacted India's immigration situation. It aims
to shed light on the unique problems associated with the remedy of Chakma
refugees, adding to a broader knowledge of the immigration demanding situations
India confronted at that point.
CHAKMA REFUGEES IN ARUNACHAL PRADESH:
THEIR INCLUSION AND SETBACK, Kallol Debnath, Kunal Debnath (2020)[6]: This paper looks at the situation of Chakma refugees in Arunachal
Pradesh, India. It examines the government's approach to granting them
citizenship and the resulting challenges. The study delves into issues like the
Chakmas' identity debates, political isolation, and the need for more than just
citizenship to address their problems. It suggests solutions such as stable
livelihoods, legal land rights, and stronger social connections for better
integration. In essence, the paper directly deals with the immigration and
citizenship issues faced by Chakma refugees in India.
MIGRATION AND DISPLACEMENT REFUGEE
CRISIS: A STUDY OF THE CHAKMAS REFUGEES IN MIZORAM, Suparna Nandy Kar, K. C.
Das(2018)[7]: This paper explores the struggles of the Chakma ethnic organisation, who
became refugees from the Chittagong Hill Tracts because of political and
environmental demanding situations. Seeking autonomy in Bangladesh, many faced
oppression and sought refuge in India's North Eastern States. The Chakmas
treated problems like poverty, illiteracy, and unemployment, dwelling in a
prolonged refugee kingdom. The examination calls for guidance from governments,
human rights establishments, and NGOs, highlighting the continued demanding
situations confronted through the Chakma refugees in India. It closely relates
to the immigration and citizenship problems of the Chakma refugees.
FORCED MIGRATION AND THE PLIGHT OF
THE CHAKMA REFUGEES IN ARUNACHAL PRADESH: ‘CITIZENSHIP’ AS A BONE OF
CONTENTION, Nawang Choden(2022)[8]: This paper looks at the citizenship issues of the Chakma community in
Arunachal Pradesh. Originally displaced from the Chittagong Hill Tracts, their
forced migration raises questions about exclusion and citizenship rights. The
study explores how refugee identity intersects with citizenship rights,
focusing on how the state grants or denies entitlements. It sheds light on
current perspectives and practices of citizenship, closely tied to the rights
of non-citizens and refugees in North East states, especially addressing the
unique challenges faced by the Chakmas.
ANALYSIS & CRITICAL
ANALYSIS
Factual
Matrix
In 1964, due to the Kaptai Hydel Power Project, many Chakmas from East
Pakistan (now Bangladesh) needed to flee their houses. They settled in Assam
and Tripura and subsequently have become Indian residents. As their numbers
grew, the Assam government sought assistance. About 4,012 Chakmas were
relocated to parts of NEFA (now Arunachal Pradesh) with guide from the
authorities, which include land and monetary useful resource. However,
existence in Arunachal Pradesh posed challenges. Tensions escalated, and in
1994, issues had been raised by the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL).
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) investigated following threats from
the All Arunachal Pradesh Students' Union (AAPSU).
In 1994, the Ministry of Home Affairs proposed granting citizenship to
the Chakmas. Despite delays, NHRC intervened, issuing orders in 1995 to ensure
Chakmas' protection. The Union of India emphasised the injustice of forcing
Chakmas to depart and opted for talk, deploying valuable paramilitary forces
for protection. The NHRC filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in opposition
to the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the Union of India, in search of safety
for the Chakmas. They invoked a writ of Mandamus to guarantee Chakmas' safety.
This narrative underscores the plight of Chakmas in Arunachal Pradesh and underscores
the necessity for a non-violent decision to their citizenship predicament.
Legal Background
This matter concerns Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which
guarantees everyone in India the right to life and personal liberty, whether he
is a citizen or not[9]. The key question here is whether non-citizens like the Chakma tribe can
enjoy the protection of Article 21 in this context and whether they can be
forcibly removed from the country. Another issue is whether the process of
granting Chakmas citizenship followed the proper procedures outlined in the
Citizenship Act of 1955[10]. Furthermore, the Human Rights Protection Act of 1993[11] is important because it provides for searches in the violation of rights
In this regard, the Court directs the State and Central Governments to take
necessary action by implementing the statutory vesting mechanism of the writ of
Mandamus provided for in Article 32[12] of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner argued that Chakmas' rights under Article 21 must be
protected, they should be granted citizenship, and the State and Union of India
must ensure their safety and well-being. It also said on the merits of their
investigation that officers of the state govt actively played a part in
oppressing the Chakma as the DC did not let their citizenship applications
pass. No strict action was taken by the authorities against the AAPSU. On the
other hand, the respondent, the State of Arunachal Pradesh, opposed the
settlement of Chakmas due to limited resources and ethnic concerns and also
argued that they have done to the best to their ability to safeguard and
protect the Chakmas and the Union of India refused to share financial
responsibility for the Chakmas and also agreed to the fact that there are
tensions in the state and was ready to send military aid to suppress the
movement of the AAPSU.
In the case of Louis De Raedt v. Union of India and the Khudiram Chakma
case, the court held that foreigners are not entitled to the protection of their
fundamental rights except Article 21. In Louis De Raedt v. Union of India[13] case, the petitioner was a foreigner who continuously resided in India
for over 5 years before adopting the Indian constitution. He was ordered to
leave India while he was claiming Indian citizenship. He used Article 5(c) of
the Indian constitution, which granted citizenship to individuals residing in
India for over five years before the commencement of the Indian constitution.
But the government dismissed his application, stating that he lacked the
required “animus manendi” (intention to stay permanently).
Similarly, in the Khudiram Chakma Case[14], 1964, the appellant and 56 other families moved to India from East
Pakistan and were housed in the government refugee camp at Ledo. They were
later sent to another camp in Miao. In 1966, the state government handed them
lands in two villages. Nonetheless, the appellant ventured out and obtained
land in another country through private agreements, and the government
questioned the legitimacy of the transaction. This order was challenged because
the Chakmas who settled there were Indian citizens, and the state infringed
their fundamental rights; the order was arbitrary and unlawful, since it
violated natural justice principles. Section 6-A of the act states that people
of Indian origin who came to Assam before 1-1-1966 from territories included in
Bangladesh just before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act,
1985 and have already resided in Assam since their entry into Assam shall be
deemed to be citizens of India as of 1-1-1966. The court ruled that Chakmas in
this case could not benefit from Section 6-A since it is a particular provision
for persons covered by the Assam Accord. They sought citizenship under Section
5(1)(a) which allows a person to register themselves as a citizen of India if
the said person satisfies the conditions given. Therefore, the Court held that
the Chakmas were not "foreigners" and were entitled to the rights
guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Also, the State Government's
notification declaring the Chakmas as "foreigners" violated Article
.21 of the Constitution of India.
The above two cases were used to give the judgement for NHRC v. State of
Arunachal Pradesh as the cases are connected through the issue of Citizenship
rights for foreigners who reside in India and are ordered to be evicted from
the state. In both cases, the petitioner challenged their classification as
“foreigners” by the government of India and recognised their fundamental rights.
These cases established that fundamental rights were guaranteed to the parties,
including the right to reside and settle in India. The Khudiram Chakma case
allowed the people who already resided in India to acquire citizenship, whereas
the Louis case established procedures for obtaining citizenship through
residence.
After a thorough assessment of the arguments of both sides and analysis
of the previous precedent and cases, The court, in the case of National Human
Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, held in favour of the
petition, allowing it and issuing directions to protect the rights of Chakmas
and ensure the citizenship process is followed in accordance with the law. The
reasoning included the State's duty to protect Chakmas from forced eviction and
threats, forwarding citizenship applications to the Central Government for
consideration, and refraining from evicting Chakmas pending citizenship
decisions. The State was also directed to pay the costs of the petition to
NHRC.
Rule of Law
The rule of law means that everyone must follow the same laws, and no one
is exempt from them.[15] In this situation, the Rule of Law is crucial for dealing with the
problems faced by the Chakma community in Arunachal Pradesh. When the Chakmas
had to leave their homes in 1964, legal and human rights became big concerns.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) stepped in, issuing orders to
protect the Chakmas' rights. The government's citizenship plan and efforts for
peaceful talks showed a commitment to solving things within the law. The NHRC's
legal petition emphasised that everyone, even the government, must follow the
law. This highlights how the Rule of Law applies to ensure fair treatment for
all.
This case shows how important it is to follow the rules and laws to
protect the Chakma community. The actions taken by the National Human Rights
Commission and the Union of India highlight the need to ensure justice and
human rights. The focus on resolving issues peacefully through legal means
emphasises that everyone, including the government, must obey the law. The
concept of the rule of law is further emphasised in the case of Yusuf
Khan v. Manohar Joshi, whose judgement says that.It is the
responsibility to uphold and safeguard the law and constitution, and it cannot
allow any violent act that might undermine the rule of law.[16]
It should be noted that nobody is above the law, which includes the state
government of Arunachal Pradesh, as well as the Active DC in the Chamkas area
at that time. According to the constitution, it is the basic duty of the
government to provide all people with the safety of life under Article 21,
which talks about the right to life and personal liberty. The concept of law
being superior to all or the Rule of Law is emphasised in the case of Indira
Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain & Anr in which Indira Gandhi, the
then PM of India, also had to bow down to the rules and regulations prevalent
in the nation[17].
Judicial Intervention
In India, judicial intervention plays a crucial role in upholding human
rights. The Indian judiciary has actively intervened in cases where there have
been violations of human rights. The Constitution of India, under Article 32
and Article 226, empowers the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, to
issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights. In this case as well,
the supreme court of India issued a writ of mandamus to order the government to
take necessary actions. One landmark case highlighting judicial intervention in
human rights violations is Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[18]. In this case, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21 (right
to life and personal liberty) and held that the procedure established by law
must be fair, just, and reasonable. This case emphasized that the right to life
includes the right to live with human dignity. Furthermore, in Nilabati
Behera v. State of Orissa[19], the Supreme Court awarded compensation to the family of a person who
died in police custody, recognizing the state's liability to protect the human
rights of individuals. In this case as well, the Supreme Court intervened in
order to ensure the Chakmas get justice.
NHRC’s Involvement
The NHRC, or the National Human Rights Commission of India, was created
with the sole purpose of upholding basic human rights and protecting vulnerable
communities from persecution and discrimination. There is no doubt that in the
current case, there were life-threatening threats made to a vulnerable
community, the Chakmas, by the AAPSU. In cases like these, it becomes of grave
importance to conduct Judicial Inquiries. In the case of Extra Judl.Exec.Victim Families
... vs Union Of India & Anr, it was held that NHRC Inquiry in cases
of Human Rights Violations is extremely necessary[20]. The NHRC must have jurisdiction in all cases of human rights
violations, and the NHRC should intervene wherever required to protect
fundamental rights; this was held in the case of Ram Deo Chauhan Alias Raj Nath
Chauhan v. Bani Kanta Das and Others[21]. Further, the judgement given in the
case of Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Amit Gupta and Others
discussed the fluidity of human rights and the NHRC’s Role in protecting
fundamental rights. This judgement expands on the jurisdiction of the NHRC to
protect human rights, including cases where individuals are denied benefits
under the law.[22] All these cases tell us how the NHRC is important in making sure the
human rights in India are not violated and that, if violated, justice is
delivered. In this case, the NHRC also played a pivotal role by investigating
the matter and assisting the Chakmas in getting justice.
States Duty
The Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 extends the scope of human rights
to all persons in India[23]. It states that the state government must protect the fundament rights
of all. Moreover, in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union
of India and Another[24], it was held that the security forces and the executive must take every
necessary step to uphold the constitutional rights of an individual. In the
present case, it is evident that the security forces of Arunachal Pradesh
failed to provide reasonable security care to the Chakmas. In India, non-citizens
are also entitled to certain rights under the Constitution and other laws. One
of the landmark cases that significantly impacted the rights of non-citizens is
the case of NHRC v. State of Gujarat[25], where the Supreme Court held that non-citizens, including refugees and
asylum seekers, are entitled to the protection of their human rights under
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and
personal liberty. Additionally, in Louis De Raedt v. Union of India,
the Supreme Court reiterated that protecting human rights is a constitutional
obligation of the government, and all individuals, including non-citizens, are
entitled to equal protection of laws[26]. Further, the rights and protection of non-citizens are provided under
The Foreigners Act 1946 and the Foreigners Order, 1948, which govern the entry,
presence and exit of foreigners in India.[27] All of this states the government's duty to protect the right to life
under Art 21 for citizens and non-citizens, which, in this case, was a failure.
CASE COMMENT
The case of NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 1996, is a
landmark case concerning the protection of human rights and the balance between
individual rights and national security. This case mainly revolved around the
protection of human rights. The National Human Rights Commission intervened to
safeguard the Chakma tribe residing in Arunachal Pradesh who migrated from
Bangladesh. In the beginning, the state of Arunachal Pradesh granted land for
resettlement. Still, conflicts and tension arose as the All Arunachal Pradesh
Students Union (AAPSU) issued “quit notices” against the Chakma tribe, due to
which NHRC approached the court about the violation of the Chakmas’ fundamental
rights and threats to their safety. The court acknowledged its duty to protect
the liberty of all individuals residing within the territory.
In our view, the court recognised the importance of protecting the human
rights of other communities that migrated from a different country. The court
stated that Chakmas, who had become Indian citizens, deserved equal protection
to the citizens of India, which shows that the court’s decision struck a
balance between the rights of Chakmas and the interests of Indian citizens.
They considered existing residents' concerns as well. It is commendable that
the state upheld the law and followed a proper procedure. They immediately
ensured the safety and security, took effective legal measures, and facilitated
a peaceful settlement. While the court’s verdict focused mainly on the
protection of human rights, it did not explicitly specify punishments for AAPSU
or the District Collector as they are the ones who started the whole thing of
removing Chakmas from the territory, and the District Collector did not forward
their application for the citizenship of India which was violative of their
fundamental right.
Overall, the case serves as a crucial reminder that protecting human
rights and upholding the law are important. Although the court did not
prescribe punishments, the judgement ensured the safety of chakmas against
AAPSU and the District collector.
CONCLUSION &
SUGGESTIONS
Therefore, we can conclude that the case of NHRC v. State of Arunachal
Pradesh is of significant importance for human rights in India. The court’s
decision also emphasised that the government has to respect people’s rights and
uphold human dignity by holding the State accountable for the same. The Court's
decision against the State of Arunachal Pradesh symbolized the fact that
arbitrariness would not be accepted, and the violators of rights would be
accountable. Also, the case showcased the
need for bodies like the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to
appropriately execute their roles of protecting the rights of people and
raising the level of transparency in the activities of the government
authorities. Consequently, this judgement immensely helped in bringing about
more inclusive and accountable administration across the board, and as a
result, the country will become a more just and equitable society in which all
of the citizens of India are treated fairly.
Moreover, NHRC's intervention in the case of the Chakmas underscores the
pivotal role of the rule of law in safeguarding the rights of individuals and
communities. It was during the period when their rights were at stake that the
legal mechanism emerged as the crucial tool for addressing the situation.
Through NHRC’s legal action, it became clear that the public and the government
have the same rights to apply the law. It means that no citizen should be
chosen based on who they are or how they look but on the basis of what they do.
Also, the fact that the government seeks the resolution of the problem through
legal ways and using a democratic approach highlights the sense of recognizing
the Chakmas as proper citizens.
Lastly, intervention is one of the paramount functions of the Indian
judiciary that has contributed to protecting human rights. The Constitution
allows the Constitution court to enforce writs, like writ of mandamus in the
case of NHRC v. Arunachal Pradesh, related to the fundamental rights under
Articles 32 and 226, respectively. All those cases where the courts acted to
prevent deprivations of human rights show how judicial intervention is a potent
tool in making the law work for all individuals.
SUGGESSTIONS
The NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh case is a significant legal
matter, necessitates a series of recommendations to establish sustainable
solutions and uphold the principles of the rule of law despite the State's
fulfillment of its duty to uphold the law. It focused on the protection of
human rights of the tribe that migrated to Andhra Pradesh from Eastern
Pakistan. Here are some suggestions for the further development of the same:
·
Conflict Resolution: Foster amicable talks between
AAPSU, Chakma, and the state government, which will identify the root cause of
the issues behind the insecurity of the AAPSU Chakma community and propose
solutions by the concerned.
·
Social Integration: Let's consider creating initiatives
that would enable Chakmas' smooth social and economic integration into the
State and ensure that it's inclusive.
·
Civil Society Involvement: In partnership
with NGOs, nurture peaceful coexistence and make the rule of law criteria
elements that would help the tribe to foster. It would help create a sense of
belonging and reduce tension.
·
Economic Upliftment: To positively respond to
international conflicts, specific economic measures should be directed to
reduce tensions and give equal opportunities to both sides. It could be
addressed through creating targeted programs that mitigate feelings of
competition and resentment.
·
Collaborative Approach: Involve the State authorities,
community members, and civil society organizations for a successful
implementation, addressing people's inclination to law and order.
·
Protecting Fundamental Rights: Promote
equality and sustainability by giving all citizens within the State a chance to
be involved.
·
Promoting Social Harmony: Establish causes that are related
to conflicts and make the dialogue a settlement for coexisting peacefully
together.
·
Upholding Judicial Review: The judiciary
should monitor the conformity of the State on the rule of law, and the
protection of fundamental rights should also be overseen by the judiciary.
[1] National Human Rights Commisssion
V. State Of Arunachal Pradesh (1996) 1 Scc 742
[2] India Const. art. 21.
[3] India Const. art. 32.
[4] Chirantan Kumar, Migration
and Refugee Issue Between India and Bangladesh, 1 Scholar’s Voice: A New Way
of Thinking 64-82 (2009).
[5] B. S. Chimni, The
Legal Condition of Refugees in India, 7 J. REFUGEE STUD. 378 (1994)
[6] Kallol Debnath & Kunal Debnath, Chakma Refugees in Arunachal Pradesh: Their
Inclusion and Setback, 7 Emerald Publishing Limited 137-148 (2020).
[7] Suparna Nandy Kar & K. C Das, Migration and Displacement Refugee Crisis: A
Study of the Chakma Refugees in Mizoram, 6 International Journal of
Humanities & Social Studies (2018).
[8] Nawang Choden, Forced
Migration and the Plight of the Chakma Refugees in Arunachal Pradesh:
‘Citizenship’ as a Bone of Contention, 8 Journal of Migration History
483-512 (2022).
[9] INDIA CONST. art. 21.
[10] Citizenship Act, No. 57, 1955
(IND)
[11] Human Rights Protection Act, No.
10, 1993 (IND)
[12] INDIA CONST. art. 32.
[13] Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, 1991 3 SCC 554
[14] State of Aruna chal Pradesh v. Khudiram Chakma, 1994
Supp (1) SCC 615
[15] M P Jain,
Indian Constitutional Law 7-9 (7th ed. 2014).
[17] Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain & Anr, AIR
1975 SC 2299
[18] Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India, 1978 AIR 597
[19] Smt. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalit Behera ... vs State
Of Orissa And Ors, AIR 1993 SC 1960
[20] Extra Judl.Exec.Victim Families ... vs Union Of India
& Anr, 2016 INSC 527
[21] Ram Deo Chauhan Alias Raj Nath Chauhan v. Bani Kanta
Das And Others, 2010 SCC 14 209
[22] Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Amit Gupta And
Others, 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 194
[23] The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
[24] People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India
and Another, 2005 SCC 2 436
[25] National Human Rights Commission vs State Of Gujarat
& Ors, 2008 SCC 16 497
[26] Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, 1991 3 SCC 554
[27] The Foreigners Act, 1946