The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking judicial directions to prevent discrimination and violence against citizens from the northeastern states and other regions, observing that identifying persons on the basis of race, region, sex or caste would amount to “treading a regressive path.” The Court asked the Attorney General to consider the plea and refer it to an appropriate authority.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi said, “A crime is a crime and it must be dealt with an iron hand,” while emphasising that categorising victims on identity grounds was not the appropriate approach.
The bench observed that after decades of independence, identifying individuals on the basis of race, region, sex or caste would be a step backward. It held that the issue raised in the petition should be placed before a competent authority rather than being examined in a PIL.
Disposing of the petition, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a soft copy of the plea along with the order to the office of the Attorney General, who was requested to take appropriate steps.
“As of now, we deem it appropriate that the aforesaid issue ought to be brought before the competent authority,” the Court said.
The PIL was filed by Delhi-based lawyer Anoop Prakash Awasthi in the backdrop of the killing of Anjel Chakma, a 24-year-old MBA student from Tripura, who died on December 26, 2025 after sustaining grievous injuries in an alleged racially motivated attack in the Selaqui area of Dehradun.
According to the petition, Chakma was stabbed to death in the presence of his younger brother. The plea alleged a “continuing constitutional failure” to prevent and respond to racial discrimination and violence against citizens from northeastern and other frontier regions.
The petitioner submitted that the issue had earlier been raised in Parliament but no dedicated agency was created to deal with such hate crimes. He sought judicial intervention and arrayed the Centre as well as all states and Union Territories as parties.
The petition called for measures to address discrimination and violence against persons from the northeast and other regions and sought institutional mechanisms for prevention and response.
The family of the deceased student has demanded capital punishment or life imprisonment for those accused in the case.
The Supreme Court declined to exercise jurisdiction in the PIL and directed that the representation be placed before the Attorney General for consideration and referral to the appropriate authority.
