1. Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. A.M. Buzarbaruah, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State of Arunachal Pradesh, Mr. D.Barua, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Election Commission of India and Mr. U.Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5.

2. The main grievance raised in the present Public Interest Litigation relates to the additional guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India in 2005 and 2007 for revision of Electoral Rolls in respect of areas where there are substantial presence of Chakmas and Hajongs, namely, 14-Doimukh (ST), 46-Chowkham (ST), 49-Bordumsa-Diyum and 50-Miao (ST) Assembly Constituencies in the State of Arunachal Pradesh which, according to the petitioners are discriminatory and also contrary to the Constitutional and statutory provisions.

3. The essential facts, in brief, which may be relevant for the purpose of consideration of the case may be referred to herein below.

4. During the 1960's due to various reasons, a large number of persons belonging to Chakma and Hajong communities in the erstwhile Pakistan, now Bangladesh, had migrated to State of Assam and sought refuge. Thereafter, many of them were settled in the erstwhile North Eastern Frontier Agency (NEFA), which is now known as Arunachal Pradesh.

5. Sometime in 2003, the Election Commission of India ordered for a Special Summary Revision of Electoral Rolls w.e.f. 1.1.2003 as the qualifying date in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. On finding that Chakmas who have been settled in various areas in the State of Arunachal Pradesh had not been included in the Electoral Rolls, an organization espousing the cause of the Chakmas called "Committee for Citizenship Rights of Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh" complained to the Election Commission of India stating that Chakmas who had settled in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and eligible to be Indian citizen were not included in the Electoral Rolls of 14-Doimukh (ST), 46-Chowkham (ST), 49-Bordumsa-Diyum and 50-Miao (ST) Assembly Constituencies of Arunachal Pradesh. Thereafter, on the basis of the said complaint, the Election Commission of India caused an enquiry to be made and on the basis of the enquiry report, the Election Commission of India ordered a Special Summary Revision of Electoral Rolls with reference to 1.1.2003 as the qualifying date in the aforesaid four Assembly Constituencies. While ordering the Special Summary Revision, the Election Commission of India had clarified that whosoever was born in India on or after 26.1.1950 but before 1.7.1987 is a citizen of India by birth by virtue of section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and birth certificates issued by the competent authorities showing therein the place of birth so produced should be accepted as material proof to establish the claim of Indian citizenship. It was further clarified that mere non-production of document should not automatically form the basis for rejection of claim for inclusion in the Electoral Rolls and lack of documentary proof can be met through local enquiry.

6. However, after such decision of the Election Commission of India, the State Cabinet of the State of Arunachal Pradesh passed a resolution on 14.5.2003 which stated that enrolment and revision of Electoral Rolls in respect of non-Arunachalis be done after verifying their Onner Line Permits and ensuring that these have the validity period of at least six month. As a result of the aforesaid Cabinet decision, the Electoral Registration Officers of the aforesaid four Assembly Constituencies reviewed their earlier decisions and rejected the claims of as many as 1497 claimants for inclusion in the Electoral Rolls. The Election Commission of India took exception to the said decision of the State Cabinet considering it to be an interference with the statutory and constitutional powers of Election Commission of India in the matter relating to preparation of electoral roll