Anjel Chakma Murder : Supreme Court Asks Attorney General To Examine Plea Seeking Guidelines Against Racial Violence

The Supreme Court on Wednesday disposed of a public interest litigation seeking guidelines to curb identity-based and racial violence against persons from the North-East, requesting the Attorney General for India to examine the issues raised.

The plea was filed in the wake of the alleged racially motivated murder of Tripura youth Anjel Chakma in Uttarakhand last December. The petitioner, Advocate Anoop Prakash Awasth, who appeared in person, highlighted incidents of racial discrimination and group-based violence faced by individuals from the North-Eastern states.

Before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi, the petitioner pressed the relief seeking a nodal agency in States to deal with grievances regarding identity-based discrimination.

CJI Kant however said that such a mechanism can encourage further divisions based on regional identities.

"The moment we start entertaining litigations where the victims are unfortunately targeted because of their region, the negative message which will be, people will start identifying he is Keralite, Tamilian, Kashmirian...we are not meant to...we have a strong federal structure, we are supposed to be stronger with unity and not to be identified with regions...if we give start identifying special treatment for them,it will again lead to a regressive thing. After 75 years of independence, should we think of..." CJI Surya Kant said.

The CJI suggested that the petitioner submit a representation to the authorities. The petitioner replied that Kiren Rijiju, the then Minister of State for Home, said in 2017 in Parliament that there was no plan to create any nodal agency. He submitted that in the new criminal laws, there was no special provision to deal with such cases. CJI said that it was probably not done keeping in mind the "negative consequences of such a provision."

The petitioner urged that there should be some mechanism, at least in educational institutions. "Somewhere, some grievance redressal mechanism should be there. It is very painful. I have so many friends from the North East. This exists. Nobody can deny it. This is a very big issue. If something happens, the bystander will just smile and go away while the fellow gets attacked," he submitted.

In the order disposing of the matter, the Bench observed that the PIL raised “vital questions for the creation of a stringent and robust mechanism under the penal laws for prevention of group-based violence on the grounds of race, place of birth, language etc.”

The Court noted that the petition referred to “hostile grounds of discrimination, prohibited by the Constitution,” and sought judicial guidelines on the lines of the principles laid down in Vishaka v State of Rajasthan, in the event appropriate legislation is not enacted.

The petitioner also sought directions for the completion of the investigation and trial in connection with the “unfortunate occurrence” that took place in Uttarakhand.

The Court stated that, at this stage, it deemed it appropriate that the issue be placed before the competent authority through the good offices of the Attorney General.

“As of now, we deem it appropriate that the aforesaid issues ought to be brought before the competent authority through the good offices of the learned AG,” the Bench observed.

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to furnish a soft copy of the plea along with the Court's order to the office of the Attorney General, to enable him to take up the matter with the appropriate authority.

Case :ANOOP PRAKASH AWASTHI Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(Crl.) No. 2/2026