18/06/2025
Magistrate Imposes Fine on Chakmas Over ILP: Legal Experts Call It Clear Contempt of Court.
Sunpura, Arunachal Pradesh | June 18, 2025
In a move that has triggered legal and human rights concerns, an Executive Magistrate in Lohit District has reportedly passed an order imposing penalties on ten Chakma tribals under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation Act, 1873 (BEFR), citing violation of Inner Line Permit (ILP) norms. Legal experts and community members have slammed the decision as a blatant contempt of the Gauhati High Court judgment which had categorically held that ILP provisions do not apply to the Chakmas and Hajongs settled in Arunachal Pradesh.
The Chakmas, originally resettled in Arunachal Pradesh by the Government of India in the 1964, are exempt from ILP regulations under the landmark ruling in "All Arunachal Pradesh Students’ Union vs. Election Commission of India (PIL No. 52 of 2010) . The Gauhati High Court observed: "Once they are allowed to settle in A.P., it would be deemed that such permits (ILP) had been granted to them... Any other view would negate and defeat the policy decision taken by the Government in consultation with Arunachal Pradesh Government authorities to settle the Chakmas in A.P."
Despite this binding precedent, the Executive Magistrate passed an order on June 16, 2025, penalizing Chakmas for alleged violations of the very law the court had exempted them from. The individuals were detained by Sunpura police based on complaints initiated by a local youth group, Sunpura Area Youth Association (SAYA), which accused the Chakmas of “illegally settling” without ILPs.
Legal Maxim Ignored: Mistake of Law Is No Excuse.
Legal commentators have strongly questioned how such an order could be passed. Citing the maxim "Ignorantia juris non excusat" - Ignorance of the law is not an excuse- they emphasized that a Magistrate has no power to override or reinterpret a High Court judgment. Police, too, are constitutionally bound to respect court verdicts.
"This is not just a legal blunder - it’s a dangerous precedent and an outright contempt of court," said Advocate Chakma, a human rights lawyer. "The responsible officials must be held accountable for violating judicial authority."
The Bigger Question: Who Is Truly Liable ?
Community members are also questioning the role of local landowners or agents who may have encouraged or employed Chakmas for forest clearing or cultivation. If Chakmas acted under someone’s instruction, then vicarious liability should apply, and the instigator must be held responsible.
"It's unjust to penalize marginalized people for actions they were lured into by others. The law must go after the powerful behind the scenes," Advocate Chakma added.
Supreme Court Orders Also Being Undermined.
The incident is also seen as a direct challenge to the Supreme Court’s 1996 judgment in NHRC vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh, which directed the state to ensure full protection of the life and liberty of Chakmas and Hajongs.
With rising concerns of communal polarization and misuse of law, human rights advocates have urged immediate intervention from higher authorities, including the Chief Secretary, the Director General of Police, and the National Human Rights Commission.
Source : Magistrate Order ( Whatsapp) , rest three picture from Facebook.
Source Story by : Atul Chakma