Gauhati High Court Upholds Entry Permits To Visit Nagaland Districts, Says 150-Year-Old Law Still Valid

The Gauhati High Court has upheld the notifications extending Inner Line Permit to Nagaland's largest city and commercial hub Dimapur, along with Chumoukedima and Niuland districts in the State, holding that Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation (BEFR) of 1873 continues to remain a valid law under the Constitution.For context, the Inner Line Permit (ILP), which is stated to derive authority from BEFR, is an official travel document issued by the Government of India to allow Indian citizens to enter protected areas in Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram. The case stems from notifications issued in September 2024 and May 2025, which extended the ILP regime to the three districts of Nagaland and laid down the documentary requirements for the grant of ILP. The same was challenged on the ground that it imposes impermissible restrictions on rights under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.A division bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury observed that the notification is regulatory in nature, not prohibitory. “The notification does not prohibit entry into Dimapur, Chumoukedima, or Niuland, nor does it permanently exclude citizens from residing within those districts. The notification introduces a permit-based regulatory mechanism. Regulation and prohibition are not constitutional equivalents,” the court said. Commenting on the restriction on freedom of movement under Article 19(5), the Court said that the phrase “general public interest” is of wide amplitude and is designed to accommodate the diverse societal concerns affecting the collective interest of the community. Security and migration concerns cannot be considered outside the scope of “general public interest” merely because Article 19(5) does not expressly enumerate them, the court said.The bench also rejected the argument that the 1873 Regulation lacked legal force. “A law does not cease to be law merely because of its antiquity, nor does a statute lose legal force solely because it originated before the commencement of the Constitution, so long as it continues under Article 372 of the Constitution of India and remains unrepealed or struck down. The Courts are bound to recognise its existence and legal efficacy,” the court said.The court also found the ILP policy rational and non-arbitrary, conforming to Article 14. “Economic consideration may legitimately predominate at one stage. Concerns relating to migration, administration, or security may subsequently assume greater significance. The mere fact that one set of considerations prevailed in the past does not render a later assessment constitutionally suspect...The Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873, continues to constitute law by virtue of Article 372 of the Constitution of India. We have further held that the impugned notifications dated 20.09.2024 and dated 27.05.2025 derive authority from that Regulation and therefore, cannot be characterised as a mere executive fiat,” the court said.BackgroundPetitioners contended that the restriction on movement can only be placed by a law meeting the requirements of Article 19 (5) and that “the impugned notification issued by the executive cannot substitute a legislative enactment”.It was further argued that BEFR, the legal basis for the ILP, is a 150-year old law and cannot be a valid ground for restricting constitutional freedoms under Part III.The petitioners argued that Dimapur has never been an exclusively Naga area, as it is home to many long-settled non-Naga and non-indigenous communities, including tribes recognized in neighbouring Assam, whose families have lived there for generations. Given this mixed population, Choudhury argued, the government's stated reason for the ILP — protecting the state's indigenous communities — doesn't hold up in Dimapur's case, making the decision to extend the permit system arbitrary.On Nagaland's special constitutional protections, the petitioners stressed that Article 371A cannot override guarantees under Articles 14, 19, and 21.Separately, advocate S Borthakur, appearing in another petition, represented the Dimasa and Karbi community from Assam's Dima Hasao and Karbi Anglong districts.Borthakur argued that the communities have deep, centuries-old family and cultural bonds with people in Dimapur. Because of this, Borthakur said, requiring a permit to visit Dimapur creates recurring hardship for people who travel there often for family functions, social events, business, or cultural reasons.He said that Dimapur, which was kept outside the ILP system for years specifically for economic reasons as per government's affidavit, is now brought under the permit system on the grounds of security and law and order. This shows inconsistency in the government policy. He added that the purpose of the Inner Line Permit system was to protect Naga tribes' interests, and not to address security concerns.Borthakur also said that the notification required people to submit NRC-related documents to...

Gauhati High Court Upholds Entry Permits To Visit Nagaland Districts, Says 150-Year-Old Law Still Valid

Amruta Gangajaliwale

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amruta Gangajaliwale

Gauhati High Court Upholds Entry Permits To Visit Nagaland Districts, Says 150-Year-Old Law Still Valid

Amruta Gangajaliwale

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amruta Gangajaliwale

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers