[ Sunil Kumar Chakma ]

The debate over replacing the 80:20 recruitment arrangement with a system requiring APST status, permanent residence certificate (PRC) and proficiency in an indigenous tribal language raises a larger constitutional question: how can Arunachal Pradesh protect its indigenous communities while ensuring that long-settled residents are not treated as permanent outsiders in the only home they have known?

Arunachal has a legitimate and important interest in protecting its indigenous tribal communities, their culture, languages, land, institutions and representation in public employment. But such protection must operate within the constitutional framework of equality, dignity and equal opportunity.

The demand for revisiting this arrangement is understandable. Arunachal has a distinctive constitutional, historical and demographic character, and the protection of its indigenous tribal communities is not merely a matter of political preference. It has a constitutional foundation. The state has a legitimate interest in protecting tribal identity, culture, language, representation and employment opportunities.

However, with the proposed replacement of the 80:20 ratio with a 100% system based on eligibility conditions that include mandatory APST status, holding PRC, and proficiency in an indigenous tribal language, the debate has moved beyond the question of reservation percentages. The more fundamental question now is: Can the protection of indigenous communities be designed in a manner that does not exclude other citizens who have lived in Arunachal for decades, or even since before the formation of the state, merely because they are not APST and do not possess a PRC?

This is not an argument against tribal rights. On the contrary, it is an argument for protecting tribal rights within the constitutional framework of equality, non-discrimination and equal opportunity.

Reservation and exclusion are different

Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment while permitting affirmative action in appropriate circumstances. The constitutional challenge, therefore, is not whether Arunachal can protect its tribal communities - it can and should - but how that protection is structured.

There is an important distinction between reserving or protecting a proportion of posts for APST candidates and making APST status or a particular residence document an absolute eligibility condition for recruitment. The former concerns affirmative action; the latter raises a broader question of exclusion.

The principle emerging from Indra Sawhney vsUnion of India is that affirmative action must remain consistent with the broader constitutional guarantee of equality. Protective measures should therefore be based on demonstrable disadvantage and underrepresentation and should be proportionate to the objective sought to be achieved.

What does Indra Sawhney tell us about discrimination?

The Supreme Court's reasoning in Indra Sawhney provides another important caution. The court explained that in determining backwardness, factors such as caste, religion and residence may be relevant, but none of them, by itself, is necessarily the decisive or indispensable criterion. What ultimately matters is the social and educational backwardness of the class.

The court further emphasised that a backward class must be identified with reference to social and educational backwardness and the continuing effects of discrimination or exploitation, rather than simply by relying upon one prohibited constitutional criterion. This principle is important. It would therefore be too simplistic to argue:

APST = backward; therefore non-APST = ineligible.

The constitutional purpose of affirmative action is to address disadvantage and inadequate representation. It is not simply to establish a permanent division between those who belong and those who do not.

The PRC question

The proposed role of the PRC requires particular constitutional scrutiny. Article 16(2) addresses discrimination based on residence and place of birth, while Article 16(3) provides a specific constitutional mechanism for prescribing residence requirements in public employment. A residence certificate may ordinarily be an administrative document. But when possession of that document determines whether a citizen can participate in recruitment at all, it assumes much greater constitutional significance. The issue is therefore not merely administrative; it concerns access to public employment and must be examined within the constitutional framework.

Long-settled residents cannot automatically be called outsiders

Perhaps the most difficult issue concerns people who are neither recent migrants nor outsiders.

There are individuals and families who have lived in Arunachal for generations, including persons whose lives were rooted in the state even before it attained its present constitutional status. They were born and educated there, built their livelihoods there, paid taxes and raised their families there. For many, Arunachal is their only home.

A person may therefore be a non-APST without being non-local. Communities such as Deori, Moran, Assamese, Chakma and Hajong have longstanding connections with the state, including families legally settled in Arunachal decades ago. Their children may have been born and educated in the state and may know no other home. Treating every non-APST resident as an 'outsider' would overlook this complex historical and social reality.

This does not diminish the distinct constitutional and historical position of Arunachal's indigenous tribal communities. Tribal identity and territorial belonging, however, are not always identical. The state can protect indigenous identity while recognising legitimate interests of other long-settled residents.

Language should serve a purpose, not become a blanket barrier

The protection of indigenous languages is equally legitimate. Language is inseparable from culture, identity and community life. For posts requiring substantial interaction with particular tribal communities, language proficiency may have a clear and rational connection with official duties. The concern arises when proficiency in an indigenous tribal language becomes a universal eligibility requirement for all Group A, B and C posts, irrespective of the nature of the work. The key question should be: Is the language requirement genuinely connected with the duties of the particular post, or does it operate primarily as an additional barrier to recruitment?

Language can be promoted through education, training, incentives and service requirements without necessarily making proficiency an absolute condition for every government position.

Recruitment rules must remain constitutional

The state has substantial authority to frame recruitment rules, but that power is subject to constitutional scrutiny. Any new framework must withstand examination under Articles 14, 16(1), 16(2), 16(3), 16(4) and 309, depending on the nature of the eligibility and reservation provisions. This does not mean that a new recruitment policy would necessarily be unconstitutional. Nor should constitutional scrutiny be portrayed as opposition to Arunachal's tribal identity. It simply means that a recruitment policy must itself remain constitutionally valid.

Beyond the 80:20 debate

The public debate should not be reduced to a choice between the old 80:20 arrangement and complete APST-based exclusion. That is a false binary.

A more sustainable framework could include:

# A carefully structured reservation system;

# Measures based on demonstrable under-representation;

# Special recruitment drives where constitutionally permissible;

# Targeted measures for particularly under-represented tribal communities;

# Appropriate age, fee or qualifying relaxations;

# A meaningful open or general competition category;

# Transitional safeguards for candidates who prepared under the earlier system; and

# Post-recruitment language and cultural training.

The precise structure should be determined through transparent assessment of representation, constitutional requirements and the particular circumstances of Arunachal. The objective should be to avoid creating a class of people who are permanent residents but permanently ineligible for public employment in the state.

A constitutional middle path

There should be no false choice between tribal protection and constitutional equality. Arunachal's indigenous communities have legitimate claims to protection, representation and preservation of their culture and languages. At the same time, other residents who have been born, educated and raised in the state cannot simply be reduced to outsiders because they do not possess APST status.

The answer is therefore neither a mechanical return to 80:20 nor an unquestioning move towards complete exclusion. The need is for a constitutionally sustainable middle path - protective but not exclusionary, affirmative but not arbitrary, and responsive to tribal aspirations while respecting the legitimate interests of long-settled residents.

A call for dialogue

The issue should not become a contest between 'tribal' and 'non-tribal' communities. The concerns of indigenous youths are genuine and deserve serious consideration. Equally, long-settled non-APST residents should not be portrayed as outsiders merely because they seek an opportunity to compete for public employment.

The government, tribal organisations, civil society, legal experts, youth organisations and representatives of long-settled communities should engage in an informed dialogue. A recruitment policy affecting generations of young people should be based on constitutional principles, reliable data and meaningful consultation, rather than on competing political pressures alone.

The question before Arunachal Arunachal has both the right and the responsibility to protect its indigenous communities. But that responsibility must be exercised within the constitutional promise of equality, dignity and equal opportunity.

The real question is not whether Arunachal should protect its tribal people. It should.

The more important question is:

How can Arunachal protect its tribal communities without turning other non-APST residents into perpetual outsiders in the land where they were born, educated and have lived their lives?

The 80:20 controversy may be coming to an end, but the constitutional conversation has only begun. Any new recruitment policy should protect indigenous identity, address historical disadvantage and secure adequate representation while remaining faithful to equality, non-discrimination, proportionality and equal opportunity.

Arunachal does not have to choose between its tribal identity and its constitutional identity. It can - and should - protect both. (The contributor is an advocate at the Gauhati High Court. The views expressed are personal.)