Page No.# 1/8 GAHC040010032026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/136/2026 The State of AP and 2 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2: The Commissioner Age: Occupation : Law and Justice Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3: The Secretary Age: Occupation : Department of Indigenous Affairs Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar VERSUS Tambo Tamin Son of Shri Tako Leriak Tamin, resident of Borum, PO and PS Naharlagun, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. Advocate for the Petitioner : Yomi Riram, GA (AP) Advocate for the Respondent : Lissing Perme, Linked Case : Cont.Cas(C)/29/2026 Tambo Tamin Age: 48 Occupation : Page No.# 2/8 Address:Son of Shri Tako Leriak Tamin resident of Borum PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS Manish Kumar Gupta and Anr Age: 0 Occupation : Address:IAS the Chief Secretary Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat Itanagar. 2:Pige Ligu Age: 0 Occupation : Address:the Secretary Department of Indigenous Affairs Govt of Arunachal Pradesh cum the Secretary Law Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat Itanagar. ------------ Advocate for : Lissing Perme Advocate for : appearing for Manish Kumar Gupta and Anr: Advocate , appearing for 2, respectively. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 25-08-2026 (K. Ete, J) Heard Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General for the applicants/State of Arunachal Pradesh. Also heard Mr. L. Perme, learned counsel for the opposite party/petitioner. Page No.# 3/8 2. This is an application filed by the State of Arunachal Pradesh praying for further extension of time to comply with the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by this Court in PIL No. 16(AP)/2022. 3. The opposite party/petitioner had approached this Court by way of the aforesaid Public Interest Litigation raising the issue that the State authorities had failed to frame the Rules mandated under Section 8 of the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1978), even after lapse of about 45 years from the enactment of the Act. 4. In the said PIL, the State had filed an affidavit stating, inter alia, that the Draft Rules had been submitted to the Government for further scrutiny and for obtaining vetting from the Law Department. The learned Advocate General appearing for the State had submitted that finalization of the Rules would take at least another six months' time. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the State and upon perusal of the materials placed on record, this Court, by order dated 30.09.2024, disposed of the PIL observing that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending as the framing of the requisite Rules as mandated under Section 8 of the Act, 1978, was already under process. This Court, however, expected the concerned authorities to remain mindful of their obligations and to finalize the Draft Rules within a period of six months from the date of the order. 6. It is submitted by Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General, that upon receipt of the aforesaid order, the matter was processed and multiple Page No.# 4/8 consultations were undertaken amongst the concerned authorities. In the meantime, certain misconceptions arose amongst sections of the public and protests were conducted in relation to the framing of the Rules under the Act. It is submitted that, considering the diverse tribal composition of the State and the fact that different tribes and sub-tribes profess different faiths, the State considered it necessary to undertake a broader consultative process in the larger public interest. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the State filed I.A. No. 88(AP)/2025 seeking further extension of six months' time for compliance with the order dated 30.09.2024. The said application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 17.06.2025, whereby a further period of six months was granted to the State for taking appropriate steps towards framing of the Rules. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that, pursuant to the aforesaid order, the State proceeded with the rule-making process and, vide order dated 14.08.2025, constituted a High Power Committee (HPC) to examine the Draft Rules and consider all relevant aspects of the matter. Subsequently, certain stakeholders submitted representations raising objections with regard to the composition of the said Committee and requested that the Committee be headed by a serving or retired Judge of the High Court. 9. Thereafter, considering the objections raised, a fresh HPC headed by Hon'ble Justice B. P. Katakey (Retd.), was constituted vide order dated 11.11.2025. The Committee thereafter undertook the consultative exercise. The State, on account of the time consumed in the aforesaid process and other circumstances, approached this Court by filing I.A. No. 316(AP)/2025 seeking Page No.# 5/8 further time. By order dated 24.02.2026, this Court granted a further period of four months for compliance with the order dated 30.09.2024. 10. It is submitted that the HPC, after undertaking the requisite exercise, submitted its report to the State Government on 08.06.2026 along with the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Draft Rules, 2026, framed under the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 1978. 11. It is further submitted that, subsequent thereto, certain individuals and religious groups have been disseminating information and material concerning the Draft Rules through social media, allegedly creating apprehension and fear psychosis amongst sections of the public. In view of the sensitivity of the subject, the State proposes to undertake certain confidence-building and awareness measures, including dissemination of information regarding the actual provisions of the Draft Rules, before its finalization. 12. It is submitted that, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the State Government has been actively pursuing the rule-making process and, having regard to the nature and sensitivity of the matter and the ongoing consultative exercise, a further period of six months is considered necessary for bringing the rule-making process to its logical conclusion. Accordingly, the present Interlocutory Application is being filed by the State seeking extension of six months’ time for finalization and framing of the Rules. 13. Mr. L. Perme, learned counsel for the opposite party/ petitioner, vehemently opposes the prayer for extension of time for framing and finalization of the Rules. He submits that the State has already been granted sufficient time on Page No.# 6/8 more than one occasion. It is contended that the original order was passed after the State itself had submitted before this Court that the Rules would be finalized within six months, and that despite repeated extensions of time granted for compliance with the said direction, the Rules have still not been notified. 14. Learned counsel further submits that the plea regarding the sensitivity of the subject matter and the proposed confidence-building measures cannot constitute a continuing ground for postponing compliance with the statutory mandate under Section 8 of the Act. He submits that, once the Legislature has enacted the law and mandated the framing of Rules for its implementation, the presumption ought to be in favour of the constitutionality and enforceability of the law so enacted, and the statutory mandate is required to be given effect to. The State cannot repeatedly seek extension of time on the same ground of perceived sensitivity. He, therefore, submits that the prayer for further extension of time deserves to be rejected. 15. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the materials placed on record. 16. There can be no dispute that the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 1978 was enacted several decades ago and that the Rules contemplated under Section 8 of the Act have not yet been finalized. At the same time, the materials placed before us indicate that, after the disposal of the PIL, the State authorities have taken a series of steps towards framing of the Rules. 17. The record indicates that a High Power Committee was initially Page No.# 7/8 constituted, objections were thereafter raised regarding its composition, and subsequently a fresh High Power Committee headed by a retired Judge of this Court was constituted. The said Committee has undertaken the exercise and has submitted its report along with the Draft Rules to the State Government on 08.06.2026. Thus, it cannot be said that the State has remained wholly inactive or that no steps have been taken pursuant to the order passed by this Court. 18. We are also conscious of the fact that this Court has already granted extension of time on two earlier occasions. Ordinarily, repeated extensions in a matter concerning implementation of a statutory mandate ought not to be granted as a matter of course. The State is expected to discharge its statutory obligation within a reasonable period and cannot indefinitely postpone the same on the ground of administrative or consultative difficulties. 19. At the same time, the material placed before us shows that the State has undertaken the rule-making exercise, constituted a High Power Committee headed by a retired Judge of this Court, undertaken consultations and received the Committee's report together with the Draft Rules. The State has also placed before us the circumstance that the subject matter involves different communities and faiths within the State and that certain apprehensions have arisen in relation to the Draft Rules. 20. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, and particularly keeping in view that the rule-making process has substantially progressed and the Draft Rules have already been placed before the State Government, we are of the considered view that further opportunity deserves to be granted to the State to bring the process to its logical conclusion. Page No.# 8/8 21. However, it is made clear that the extension granted herein shall not be construed as permitting the State to indefinitely defer the implementation of the statutory mandate. The concerned authorities shall take all necessary steps with due expedition and shall ensure that the Draft Rules are finalized within the period granted by this Court. 22. Accordingly, the State Government is granted a further period of 6 (six) months from today to finalize the Rules as mandated under Section 8 of the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 1978, in compliance with the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by this Court in PIL No. 16(AP)/2022. 23. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant