Supreme Court Petition Highlights Racial Violence Against Northeastern Citizens

A recent PIL filed in the Supreme Court aims to address the ongoing issue of racial discrimination and violence against citizens from northeastern states. This legal action follows the tragic death of Anjel Chakma, a young MBA student, who was brutally attacked in Dehradun. The petition calls for judicial intervention, the establishment of dedicated police units, and comprehensive guidelines to combat hate crimes. It highlights the urgent need for reforms in India's criminal justice system to recognize and address racial bias effectively. The case has sparked widespread protests and demands for justice across the nation, emphasizing that such incidents are part of a larger pattern of racial violence that must be confronted.
 | 
Supreme Court Petition Highlights Racial Violence Against Northeastern Citizens

Judicial Action Sought for Racial Discrimination


New Delhi: A public interest litigation (PIL) has been submitted to the Supreme Court, calling for judicial intervention to tackle the ongoing constitutional failures in addressing racial discrimination and violence against individuals from northeastern states and other border regions.


This PIL was lodged on December 28, following the tragic death of Anjel Chakma, a 24-year-old MBA student from Tripura, who died on December 27 due to severe injuries inflicted during a racially motivated attack in Dehradun's Selaqui area.


Anjel, hailing from Machmara in Unakoti district, had moved to Dehradun after graduating from Holy Cross School in Agartala to pursue his MBA. He was fatally stabbed in front of his younger brother, Michael.


The Chakma family is demanding the death penalty or life imprisonment for those responsible for the attack. Anoop Prakash Awasthi, a lawyer based in Delhi, has included the Centre and all states and Union territories as parties in the PIL.


The petition seeks a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution, aiming to address violations of fundamental rights as outlined in Articles 14, 19 (1) (a) & (g), and 21, thereby calling for judicial action against racial discrimination and violence faced by citizens from northeastern states.


The plea poignantly recalls Anjel Chakma's last words, questioning, "We are Indians. What certificate should we show to prove that?" This statement tragically preceded the violent confrontation that led to his death.


The petition cites media reports regarding Chakma's demise, detailing how both brothers were assaulted, with Anjel suffering critical injuries to his neck and spine. He remained unconscious throughout his treatment and passed away after over two weeks in intensive care, sparking widespread outrage and calls for justice nationwide.


The petition requests the issuance of an interim writ to formulate comprehensive guidelines that recognize 'racial slur' as a distinct category of hate crimes, along with establishing appropriate punishments.


It also calls for the creation of a "nodal agency or a permanent body or commission" at both the central and state levels to address and report racial crimes.


Furthermore, the plea urges the establishment of dedicated special police units in each district to tackle racial crimes effectively.


The petition advocates for workshops and discussions in educational institutions to address the issue of racial discrimination and explore solutions.


Despite the evident racial motivation behind such crimes, the current criminal justice system in India lacks mechanisms to identify or document racial bias during initial investigations.


Consequently, these offenses are often treated as regular crimes, which diminishes their constitutional significance and fosters a culture of impunity.


The petition emphasizes that Anjel Chakma's murder is not an isolated case but part of a persistent pattern of racial violence against individuals from northeastern states.


It references previous incidents, including the death of Nido Taniam in 2014 and various assaults on students and workers in urban areas, which have been acknowledged by the Centre in parliamentary responses but remain unaddressed by any specific legislative or institutional measures.