GUWAHATI: The Supreme Court granted the Manipur government eight weeks to file its response in a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Inner Line Permit (ILP) system on Wednesday, November 20.
ALSO READ: Road Accident In Assam’s Dhekiajuli Claims One Life, Three Injured
The petition was filed by an organisation which argued that the ILP system in Manipur prevents non-residents from entering or conducting business in the state without first obtaining the required permit. The bench, comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti, agreed to grant the state's counsel time to file a response.
The petitioner sought a declaration that the Adaptation of Laws (Amendment) Order 2019, which extended the provisions of the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulations (BEFR) of 1873 to Manipur, was unconstitutional. The petitioner claimed that the order violated several fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The case had previously been taken up by a bench of Justice Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari in January 2022, which issued a notice in the petition. The Union of India had also filed a counter-affidavit in the case.
The ILP system had been extended to Manipur in 2019 following the enactment of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Under the ILP system, areas within the Inner Line are exempt from the provisions of the CAA. The writ petition challenged the continuation of the ILP system, introduced through the 2019 order, which extended the 140-year-old colonial legislation — the BEFR 1873 — to Manipur. Originally enacted by the British to control trade in Assam’s newly established tea plantations and protect commercial interests in tribal areas, the legislation’s application to Manipur was said to violate the constitutional rights of non-indigenous persons.
The petitioners argued that the ILP system hindered social integration, development, and technological progress in the state, particularly in areas beyond the Inner Line. Additionally, it was claimed that the restrictions had a detrimental effect on tourism, which was a significant source of revenue for the region. The petitioners assert that while the BEFR 1873 had been created by the British to protect their economic interests, its continued application post independence, under the guise of safeguarding tribal areas, was unjustified.
