The Supreme Court of India, as the sentinel on the qui vive of our fundamental rights, has once again stepped into a domain that touches the very core of India’s social fabric. In a significant judicial development, the apex court has called upon the Attorney General of India to examine a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the formulation of comprehensive guidelines to curb racial discrimination and violence. This judicial intervention comes in the wake of the tragic and suspicious death of Anjel Chakma in Dehradun, an incident that has reignited the discourse on the safety and dignity of individuals from the Northeast and minority ethnic communities residing in various parts of mainland India.
As a Senior Advocate witnessing the evolution of our jurisprudence, I find this move by the Supreme Court both timely and necessary. While the Indian Constitution is built on the bedrock of equality, the ground reality often mirrors a different, more harrowing story for those who are perceived as ‘different’ due to their facial features, language, or cultural practices. The Anjel Chakma case is not merely a localized criminal investigation; it is a symptom of a deeper systemic malaise that the Indian legal system must address through structured guidelines and robust enforcement mechanisms.
The Genesis of the Plea: The Tragic Death of Anjel Chakma
The case revolves around the untimely demise of Anjel Chakma, a young woman whose life was cut short in Dehradun under circumstances that many believe were motivated by racial bias or, at the very least, followed by an investigation hampered by such biases. The petition filed before the Supreme Court highlights that people from the Northeast region and other ethnic minorities frequently face systemic harassment, verbal abuse, and physical violence, often termed ‘racial profiling.’
In the Anjel Chakma case, the petitioners argue that the lack of specific guidelines to deal with racial violence leads to a lackadaisical approach by law enforcement agencies. When a crime is committed against a person from a marginalized ethnic background, the racial element is often ignored in the First Information Report (FIR), leading to a dilution of the gravity of the offense. The PIL seeks to bridge this gap by demanding a protocol that recognizes and penalizes the racial motivations behind such crimes.
Understanding the Supreme Court’s Mandate to the Attorney General
The Bench, recognizing the gravity of the issues raised, has sought the assistance of the Attorney General (AG) for India. In our legal system, the AG is not just the government’s top lawyer but also an officer of the court who assists in matters of great public importance. By asking the AG to examine the plea, the Supreme Court is indicating that the issue of racial violence requires a policy-level intervention that involves the Union Government.
The Court’s direction implies that the existing legal framework—primarily the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (formerly the Indian Penal Code)—may not be sufficient to address the nuances of racial discrimination. The AG’s role will be to evaluate whether current laws can be stretched to provide protection or if there is a constitutional necessity to issue ‘Vishaka-style’ guidelines to fill the legislative vacuum until Parliament enacts a specific law.
The Constitutional Framework: Beyond Article 14 and 15
The legal arguments for guidelines against racial violence are firmly rooted in the Constitution of India. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, while Article 15 expressly prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. However, the word ‘race’ in Article 15 has often remained under-litigated compared to ‘caste’ or ‘religion.’
Furthermore, Article 21, the right to life and personal liberty, encompasses the right to live with dignity. Racial violence and the constant threat of discrimination constitute a direct violation of this dignity. As a Senior Advocate, I argue that ‘equality’ is not a passive concept; it requires the state to take affirmative steps to ensure that certain groups are not unfairly targeted. If the state fails to protect a citizen from violence motivated by their racial identity, it fails its constitutional mandate under Article 21.
The Lacuna in Existing Criminal Laws
While we have laws against ‘hate speech’ and ‘promoting enmity between groups’ (Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, formerly Section 153A IPC), these are often insufficient to tackle individual acts of racial violence or systemic discrimination in housing, employment, and public spaces. The current laws focus on communal or religious harmony but often miss the subtle and overt forms of ‘racism’ that exist within the Indian context.
In many instances, victims from the Northeast are subjected to ‘micro-aggressions’ and slurs that do not always meet the threshold of a traditional crime but create a hostile environment. The plea in the Anjel Chakma case seeks to address this spectrum of violence, ranging from derogatory remarks to physical assault and institutional neglect.
The Bezbaruah Committee Recommendations: A Forgotten Blueprint?
It is important to remember that this is not the first time the issue of racial discrimination against Northeastern citizens has reached the doors of the government or the courts. Following the tragic death of Nido Tania in Delhi in 2014, the Ministry of Home Affairs constituted the M.P. Bezbaruah Committee. The committee’s report was a landmark document that suggested several legal and administrative reforms.
Key Proposals of the Bezbaruah Committee
The committee recommended the insertion of new sections into the Indian Penal Code. Specifically, it proposed Section 153C to punish those who use words, signs, or gestures that cause fear, alarm, or a feeling of insecurity among members of a particular racial group. It also proposed Section 509A to penalize racial slurs and derogatory remarks specifically targeting a person’s race.
Despite these clear recommendations, legislative action has been sluggish. The current PIL in the Anjel Chakma case essentially asks the Supreme Court to do what the executive and legislature have delayed: provide a concrete legal framework that makes racial discrimination a specific, punishable offense. The Supreme Court’s decision to involve the AG suggests a renewed focus on these long-pending recommendations.
Racial Profiling and the ‘Othering’ of Citizens
In the courtroom, we often deal with facts and figures, but the socio-legal reality of racial violence is rooted in the ‘othering’ of citizens. People from the Northeast, Ladakh, and other regions are often treated as foreigners in their own country. This ‘othering’ manifests in various ways—from being overcharged by vendors to being denied rental housing, and in extreme cases, being the targets of physical violence.
The Anjel Chakma case highlights the vulnerability of students and young professionals who migrate to educational hubs like Dehradun or metropolitan cities like Delhi and Bengaluru. When the legal system fails to recognize the racial element of a crime, it emboldens the perpetrators and alienates the victims. Guidelines are necessary to sensitize the police force, ensuring they do not dismiss such complaints as ‘minor scuffles’ or ‘personal disputes.’
The Role of the Judiciary in Filling Legislative Gaps
Critics often argue about ‘judicial overreach’ whenever the Supreme Court issues guidelines. However, in the history of Indian law, the judiciary has frequently stepped in when the legislature has failed to protect the fundamental rights of a specific group. The most famous example is the Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan case, where the court issued guidelines on sexual harassment at the workplace because there was no law at the time.
Similarly, in the Prakash Singh case, the court issued guidelines for police reforms. The plea for guidelines against racial violence follows this tradition. If the AG and the Court conclude that the current laws are inadequate to protect citizens from racial discrimination, the Supreme Court has the inherent power under Article 142 to pass any order necessary for doing ‘complete justice.’
International Standards and India’s Obligations
India is a signatory to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). Under this convention, the state is obligated to take effective measures to review governmental, national, and local policies and to amend, rescind, or nullify any laws and regulations which have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination. The Supreme Court’s inquiry into this PIL aligns with India’s international legal commitments, reinforcing the idea that domestic law must evolve to meet global human rights standards.
What Should the Proposed Guidelines Look Like?
For any guidelines to be effective in the wake of the Anjel Chakma case, they must be multi-dimensional. Based on my experience in the higher judiciary, I believe the following elements are essential:
1. Mandatory Registration of Racial Bias in FIRs
The police must be mandated to record if the victim believes the crime was motivated by their racial or ethnic identity. This would allow for better data collection and help in identifying ‘hate crime’ patterns.
2. Special Cells and Nodal Officers
Every major city with a significant population of people from the Northeast should have a dedicated cell, headed by a senior officer, to handle complaints of racial discrimination. These cells should be sensitized to the cultural nuances of the communities they serve.
3. Sensitization and Training
Judicial officers and police personnel need regular training programs to recognize implicit biases. The ‘othering’ of citizens often starts with the very people meant to protect them.
4. Fast-Track Courts for Ethnic Violence
Cases involving racial violence, like the Anjel Chakma case, should be fast-tracked to ensure that justice is not delayed. Delay in such cases often leads to witnesses being intimidated or moving back to their home states, causing the prosecution’s case to collapse.
The Path Forward: A Call for Legal Solidarity
The Supreme Court’s decision to involve the Attorney General is a beacon of hope for thousands of citizens who live in fear of discrimination. It is a recognition that ‘Race’ is a protected category that deserves specific attention in our legal discourse. As the AG examines the plea, the focus must remain on the human element—the life of Anjel Chakma and many others like her who sought education and opportunity but found prejudice and violence.
The legal community must support this endeavor. We need a legal environment where no citizen feels like a stranger in their own land. The formulation of these guidelines will not just be a victory for the Chakma community or the people of the Northeast; it will be a victory for the Indian Constitution. It will reaffirm that the ‘Unity’ in our ‘Diversity’ is not a mere slogan but a legally enforceable right.
Conclusion: Justice for Anjel Chakma and Beyond
The Anjel Chakma case serves as a somber reminder that the law is often a step behind the social challenges of the time. However, the Supreme Court’s proactive stance offers a chance to catch up. By seeking the Attorney General’s expertise, the Court is paving the way for a structural change that could redefine how India handles racial and ethnic friction.
As we await the AG’s response and the subsequent hearings, the message from the highest court is clear: discrimination in any form, especially that based on a person’s inherent identity, has no place in a civilized democracy. The guidelines sought are not just about punishment; they are about fostering a culture of respect, safety, and true constitutional equality for every citizen, regardless of their features or their place of origin. Justice for Anjel Chakma must translate into systemic safety for all.
