In a significant judgment that settles the legal challenge to the extension of the Inner Line Permit (ILP) regime to Nagaland’s commercial hub, the Gauhati High Court on Tuesday upheld the State government’s decision to bring Dimapur, Chümoukedima and Niuland districts under the ILP system and dismissed three Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed against the move.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury delivered the judgment in PIL No. 22/2025, PIL No. 29/2025 and PIL No. 67/2025, holding that the notifications extending ILP to the three districts were legally sustainable and backed by statutory authority.

Two of the PILs—PIL No. 22/2025 and PIL No. 67/2025—were filed by Kiron Paira, a resident of Dimapur, challenging Notification No. CON-3/PAP/65/10 dated September 20, 2024 extending the ILP regime to Dimapur, Chümoukedima and Niuland; Notification No. CON/RIIN/50/2020 relating to Indigenous Inhabitant Certificates; and The Nagaland Land and Revenue Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1978.

However, during the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel informed the Court that the challenge to the Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate notification and the 1978 amendment was not being pursued. The case was thereafter confined to the challenge against the ILP notifications.

The third petition, PIL No. 29/2025, was filed by Uttam Bathari, Kangthim Ronghang and Sarklim Bey, members of the Dimasa and Karbi communities from Assam, who challenged the September 20, 2024 notification extending ILP and the subsequent May 27, 2025 notification prescribing documentary requirements for obtaining ILP.

Senior advocate KN Choudhury, appearing for Kiron Paira, argued that the ILP extension violated constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19 and 21 by imposing restrictions on movement and residence through executive action rather than legislation.

The petitioners contended that Dimapur had been deliberately kept outside the ILP regime for decades to facilitate trade and commerce; the State had failed to produce empirical evidence showing the necessity of extending ILP; the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873, a colonial-era law, could not be used to curtail fundamental rights; and Article 371(A) could not override constitutional protections under Part III of the Constitution.

Representing the Assam petitioners, senior advocate S Borthakur argued that the Dimasa and Karbi communities share deep historical, cultural and familial ties with Dimapur, which was once the capital of the Kachari Kingdom.

He submitted that frequent travel to Dimapur for family, social, cultural and business purposes would become burdensome under the permit regime. He also raised concerns regarding the requirement of NRC-related documents for ILP applications, pointing out that the NRC process in Assam remains incomplete.

Nagaland Government’s Defence

Defending the notifications, Advocate General KN Balgopal argued that the ILP extension was not a mere executive decision but flowed directly from powers granted under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873, which continues to remain in force under Article 372 of the Constitution.

The State maintained that the extension was necessary to protect indigenous communities; regulate unchecked migration; address security and law-and-order concerns; and preserve constitutional safeguards available to the people of Nagaland.

The government further argued that the ILP system was regulatory and not prohibitory, as it did not prevent entry into Nagaland but merely required visitors to obtain permits.

Nagaland Tribune app on Google Play

Court’s key findings

After examining the historical and constitutional background of the ILP system, the High Court held that the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873 continues to be valid law by virtue of Article 372 of the Constitution.

Rejecting the petitioners’ central argument, the Bench observed that the notifications derive their authority from the Regulation and therefore cannot be treated as executive instructions.

“The notification does not create the inner-line system. The existence of the inner-line system predates the notification by more than a century,” the Court observed.

The Bench further held that the ILP regime is a regulatory mechanism and not an absolute prohibition on movement or residence; protection of tribal and indigenous interests is specifically recognised under Article 19(5) of the Constitution; concerns relating to migration, demographic pressure and security fall within the ambit of “general public interest”; the extension of ILP is neither arbitrary nor disproportionate; and Article 371(A) forms part of the constitutional context supporting differentiated treatment for Nagaland.

Court rejects challenge based on Dimapur’s exemption

One of the major arguments raised by the petitioners was that Dimapur had remained outside the ILP regime for decades and that its sudden inclusion was arbitrary.

The Court, however, held that governments are not permanently bound by earlier policy choices and may alter policies in response to changing social, demographic and administrative realities.

The judgment noted that the State had placed before the Court committee reports, departmental deliberations and Cabinet decisions that preceded the extension of ILP to Dimapur, Chümoukedima and Niuland.

Accordingly, the Bench rejected the argument that the decision lacked factual foundation.

Relief on NRC documentation

While dismissing the challenge, the Court recorded an assurance given by the Nagaland government regarding applicants from neighbouring Assam districts.

The Advocate General informed the Court that residents of Cachar, Hailakandi, Dima Hasao and Karbi Anglong would not be required to produce a final NRC registration document for ILP applications.

Instead, a “Receipt of Claim” containing the ARN number generated during the NRC process would be accepted for processing applications.

The Court observed that this assurance substantially addressed the concerns raised by the Assam petitioners.

PILs dismissed

Concluding that the petitioners had failed to establish any constitutional infirmity in the impugned notifications, the Court dismissed all three PILs and vacated any interim orders.