New Delhi: A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Supreme Court of India seeking the urgent formulation of binding guidelines to recognize and punish racially motivated violence. The plea comes in the wake of the tragic death of 24-year-old Anjel Chakma, an MBA student from Tripura, who was allegedly killed following a racial assault in Dehradun, Uttarakhand.
The petition, filed by Advocate Anoop Prakash Awasthi under Article 32 of the Constitution, characterizes the incident as a "continuing constitutional failure." It argues that the lack of a specific legal framework to address hate crimes against citizens from India’s North-Eastern states has created a pattern of impunity.
According to the petition, the incident took place on December 9, 2025, in the Selaqui area of Dehradun. Anjel Chakma and his younger brother were out shopping when they were accosted by a group of men. The group allegedly targeted the brothers with racial slurs and derogatory comments based on their North-Eastern appearance.
When Anjel protested and asserted his identity as an Indian citizen, he reportedly asked the attackers: “We are Indians. What certificate should we show to prove that?”
These words, the petition notes, tragically became his last recorded assertion of constitutional belonging. The confrontation escalated into a brutal physical attack where both brothers were beaten and stabbed. Anjel sustained critical injuries to his neck and spine. After fighting for his life in a hospital for over two weeks, he succumbed to his injuries on December 27, 2025.
The core argument of the PIL is that India’s current criminal justice system—even after the recent implementation of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023—fails to recognize "racial motivation" as a distinct aggravating factor.
While the police have registered an FIR for murder (Section 103 of the BNS), the petitioner argues that treating such cases as "ordinary" crimes erases the hateful motive behind them. The plea highlights several critical gaps:
No Record of Bias: There is no mandatory requirement for police to record "bias motivation" at the initial FIR stage.
Dilution of Gravity: By ignoring the racial element, the constitutional gravity of the crime is diminished, making it appear as a simple personal dispute rather than a targeted attack on a community.
Lack of Protocols: There are no specialized investigative protocols or victim-protection mechanisms specifically designed for hate crime survivors.
The petition submits that this "legislative vacuum" violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (Equality), 15 (Non-discrimination), 19 (Freedom), and 21 (Life and Liberty) of the Constitution. Furthermore, it argues that racial violence strikes at the heart of "Fraternity," a core value enshrined in the Preamble.
Invoking the landmark Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan case—where the Supreme Court issued guidelines against sexual harassment in the absence of a specific law—the petitioner has urged the apex court to step in again.
The PIL asks the Court to act as the "sentinel on the qui vive" (the watchful guardian) and issue comprehensive directions until the Parliament enacts suitable legislation. The specific prayers in the petition include:
Recognition of Racial Slurs: Declaring racial slurs as a distinct category of hate crime with prescribed punishments.
Specialized Units: Establishing dedicated "Special Police Units" in every district and metropolitan area to handle racial offences.
Nodal Agencies: Creating a permanent body at both Central and State levels to register and redress complaints of racial discrimination.
Sensitization: Directing educational institutions to organize workshops and seminars to promote social harmony and raise awareness about the diversity of India.
The plea reminds the Court that this is not an isolated event. It refers to the 2014 death of Nido Taniam, a student from Arunachal Pradesh who was killed in Delhi, and various other assaults on North-Eastern citizens in metropolitan hubs.
The petitioner points out that while the Union Government has acknowledged the problem in Parliament, no concrete legislative steps have been taken. The Bezbaruah Committee, formed after the Nido Taniam case, had made several recommendations to amend the Indian Penal Code (now BNS), but these have largely remained on paper.
The petition moves beyond pure legalities, situating the issue within India’s "civilisational ethos." It argues that racial discrimination is not only unconstitutional but "anti-civilisational," threatening the moral foundation and unity of the nation.
The petitioner clarifies that the plea is brought in the public interest, without any personal or oblique motive, to protect citizens from "frontier regions" who often find themselves vulnerable in other parts of the country.
Case Title: Anoop Prakash Awasthi v. Union of India & Ors. Bench: Supreme Court of India (Hearing expected shortly) and