IMPORTANT POINT
Governments have a non-negotiable obligation to take positive steps to give effect to India's commitment to racial equality.

JUDGMENT

Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J

The petitioners are advocates and have initiated these proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution, in public interest for guidelines to be set down to curb acts of discrimination against persons from the north-eastern states. The petitioners speak of the paradox of secular India where on the one hand, students from the north-eastern states who move to other parts of the country in search of employment and education, learn in the process the culture and traditions of the rest of the country while on the other hand, there is an absence of reciprocating sensitivity towards and awareness of their concerns. They have drawn attention to the discrimination prevalent in society against citizens of the nation drawn from the north-eastern states. Such acts of discrimination violate the fundamental duty under Article 51A(e) which is :

“to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women”.

In order to support the plea with factual details the petitioners have adverted to instances which were reported in the print media since 2009. On 26 October 2009, a single woman is alleged to have been burnt to death in the kitchen of her home by a stalker whose unwelcome advances she had rebuffed. On 17 April 2012, a young student from Manipur is alleged to have died after being assaulted in a hostel. In August 2012, panic is alleged to have been created amongst a community of persons residing in Karnataka as a result of the circulation of hostile messages on social media. On 29 May 2013, a young Manipuri girl is alleged to have been murdered in a rented apartment in the national capital. On 25 January 2014, two young women from the north-east were subject to racial taunts and molestation and soon thereafter on 29 January 2014, a young student was racially ridiculed and assaulted to death in the Lajpat Nagar area of New Delhi. These instances have been alluded to not with a view to seeking the intervention of the court in specific cases (the law has been set into motion to deal with such instances of hate crime) but to establish the need for the issuance of guidelines which will bring about a systemic approach to addressing the problem.

2. The relief which the petitioners seek is a mandamus directing :

I) The Union Government as well as the States to formulate a mechanism to deal with racial atrocities;

II) Directing the Government of Delhi to constitute a special investigation team headed by a former judge of this Court to investigate into atrocities committed in specific instances;

III) Directing the Union and the States to frame a proper mechanism to deal with cases of racial intolerance and discrimination; and

IV) To all authorities to undertake programmes for inculcating awareness and to sensitise both the public and the law enforcing machinery.

3. Article 15 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 21 December 1965. India ratified the Convention in 1968. The Convention has come into force on 4 January 1969. Article 2 of the Convention imposes the following obligation on the States Parties :

“Article 2

1. States Parties condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races, and, to this end: (a) Each State Party undertakes to engage in no act or practice of racial discrimination against persons, groups of persons or institutions and to ensure that all public authorities and public institutions, national and local, shall act in conformity with this obligation;

(b) Each State Party undertakes