Supreme Court disposes of PIL on Tripura student Angel Chakma’s killing, refers plea on racially motivated violence to Attorney General, raising urgent concerns over hate crime laws, constitutional safeguards, and protection for Northeast citizens across India.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday disposed of a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking pan-India guidelines to address what the petitioner described as a “continuing constitutional failure” in tackling racially motivated violence against citizens from the North-Eastern states.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant termed the recent murder of a Tripura student in Dehradun as “unfortunate” but declined to issue judicial directions at this stage. Instead, the Court advised the petitioner to bring the matter before the Attorney General for India, the Union government’s highest law officer.
The Bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, observed that the concerns raised in the petition required consideration at the appropriate executive level. “At this stage, we deem it appropriate that the aforesaid issues ought to be brought before the competent authority through the good office of the learned AG,” the Court remarked.
PIL Filed Under Article 32
The petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, invoking the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction for enforcement of fundamental rights. It contended that despite the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, there remains no statutory recognition of hate crimes or racial offences as distinct categories.
The petitioner argued that there is no mandatory mechanism for recording bias motivation at the First Information Report (FIR) stage, nor are there specialised investigative or victim-protection frameworks to address identity-based violence.
Appearing in person, advocate Anoop Prakash Awasthi submitted that racial discrimination against citizens from the Northeast is a harsh reality. “It is very painful. I have so many friends from the Northeast. 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 told the Bench.
Court Expresses Reservations
While acknowledging the seriousness of the issue, the Bench expressed caution about creating region-specific mechanisms. Chief Justice Kant noted that entertaining litigations that categorise victims primarily by their regional identity could inadvertently reinforce divisions.
“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, etc. We have a strong federal structure; we are supposed to be stronger with unity and not to be identified with regions,” the Bench orally observed.
The Court thus disposed of the PIL, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Attorney General for further action.
Background: Killing of Angel Chakma
The PIL was filed in the backdrop of the brutal assault and subsequent death of Angel Chakma, a native of Tripura, in Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Chakma, a final-year MBA student, was allegedly attacked on December 9, 2025, in the Selaqui area following an altercation with a group of youths.
According to a complaint lodged by his brother, the attackers hurled racial slurs before assaulting him with sharp objects. The petition quoted Chakma’s last recorded assertion during the confrontation: “We are not Chinese… We are Indians. What certificate should we show to prove that?”
The plea described these words as his “final assertion of constitutional belonging” before the assault escalated into fatal violence.
Demand for Hate Crime Recognition
The petition contended that despite apparent hate-based and racial motivations, such offences are routinely treated as “ordinary crimes” under existing criminal laws. This, it argued, results in the erasure of motive and diminishes the constitutional gravity of the offence.
“There is no mechanism in the initial criminal justice response system to recognise racial offences as a distinct constitutional wrong,” the petition stated. It further argued that this gap perpetuates impunity and fails to uphold constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality, and fraternity.
Highlighting past incidents, including the 2014 death of Nido Taniam, the plea asserted that Chakma’s killing was not an isolated episode but part of a recurring pattern of violence targeting citizens from the North-Eastern states. The petition noted that the Union government has acknowledged such concerns in past parliamentary responses.
Broader Constitutional Questions
The PIL sought binding guidelines that would recognise racially motivated violence as a distinct constitutional wrong. It also urged the establishment of a dedicated grievance redressal mechanism, particularly within educational institutions, to address identity-based discrimination.
By referring the matter to the Attorney General rather than issuing judicial guidelines, the Supreme Court signalled that the issue may require legislative or executive intervention rather than immediate judicial direction.
| Also Read: Angel Chakma killing: Tripura CM seeks fast justice in Delhi |
The case has reignited national debate over hate crime laws, the adequacy of existing criminal statutes, and the need for stronger institutional safeguards to protect citizens from racial and identity-based violence. As the matter moves to the executive domain, attention will now focus on whether the government initiates policy or legislative measures to address the concerns raised before the apex court.
