2026 Supreme(Gau) 1092

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, CJ., ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
Shri Kiron Paira – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India – Respondents
PIL 22 of 2025 
Decided On : 16-06-2026

Pre-constitutional regulations preserved under the Constitution remain valid law. Executive notifications issued under such authority to regulate entry into specific regions are permissible, provided they impose reasonable, non-arbitrary restrictions serving public welfare objectives or the protection of tribal interests without destroying fundamental rights.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e), 19(5), 371A, 372 - Regulation of entry into specific frontier regions - Validity of pre-constitutional enactments - Whether extending a permit regime violates fundamental freedoms.

(B) Pre-constitutional laws continue to remain in force by virtue of constitutional mandate - Such enactments derive authority from the Constitution and possess the status of law rather than subordinate executive instructions - Restrictions imposed in the interest of the general public and for the protection of tribal interests are permissible under the constitutional scheme - Regulatory measures that do not extinguish fundamental rights but merely regulate them are not per se unconstitutional - Reasonable classification based on historical residency periods to protect existing populations is legally sound. (Paras 38, 54, 111, 117)

(C) Judicial Review - Matters of public policy and administrative strategy - The judiciary is not an appellate authority over governmental policy and will not interfere unless the policy is found to be manifestly arbitrary or lacks the backing of authority - Need for empirical data in policy formulation is contingent upon the nature of the measure being challenged. (Paras 129, 138)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged executive notifications extending a mandatory entry permit regime to specific districts, contending that the underlying historical regulation was obsolete in the current constitutional order and that the restriction on movement and residence violated fundamental rights. The state maintained that the measure was necessary to preserve indigenous interests and maintain public order.

Findings of Court:
The foundational regulation survives as valid law under the constitutional framework. The notifications were issued under existing statutory power and do not constitute an arbitrary restriction. The permit system acts as a regulatory framework that balances the protection of tribal interests with the exercise of fundamental rights.

Issues: Whether the base regulation holds the status of law, whether extending the permit regime constitutes an unreasonable restriction on movement and residence, and whether the classification of residents based on historical cutoff dates is arbitrary.

Ratio Decidendi: Laws continuing under a specific constitutional provision do not lose their legal force due to their colonial origin. A permit regime that does not prohibit entry but regulates it for legitimate state objectives—such as the protection of tribal populations and regional stability—constitutes a reasonable restriction. Graduated treatment of residents based on historical administrative phases satisfies the requirements of non-arbitrariness.

Result: Petitions dismissed.