The year Manipur burned, government failed and Supreme Court tried

A judicial Order became the immediate reason for the violence that erupted in Manipur in May. It was only right then that as state and Union governments struggled to pay enough attention, perhaps deliberately, the Supreme Court made a valiant effort to ensure accountability, amelioration of the condition of the victims and a return to normalcy. 

—

THE heat of the flames of violence that flared up in Manipur in May this year quickly reached the Supreme Court of India.

It all started on March 27, when the Manipur High Court directed the state government to consider the inclusion of the Meitei community in the list of Scheduled Tribes.

The Order created new incisions in old fissures in a region fraught with inter-community conflicts.

By May 3, the simmering anger had spilled into the streets and fields of Bishnupur and Churachandpur districts, leading to destruction of homes, temples and churches that quickly escalated to other districts of the state over the following days.

By May 8, even as the Union and state governments were claiming that the state was returning to normalcy, the Chief Justice of India Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, during a hearing on a special leave petition challenging the Order, was orally questioning how the judge could have passed such an Order, against the constitutional mandate of Article 342 and judicial precedent.

But by then the violence had attained a critical mass and as the Union and state governments continued to act slowly, the violence soon turned so ferocious that it began to be described as akin to a "civil war".

Soon the violence reached such a crescendo that on July 12, even the European Parliament passed a resolution on it.

In its recommendations, the European Parliament urged Indian authorities to protect all religious minorities, "such as Manipur's Christian community". It called on political leaders to stop inflammatory statements and not criminalise those critical of the government's conduct.

Also read: Manipur crisis: A fresh incision in old fissures

Eight months later, the violence rages on and has consumed nearly 200 lives. Hundreds have been injured and over 70,000 have been displaced from their homes. Nearly 5,000 houses have been burnt down. This is in addition to the many religious places, schools and government buildings that have been destroyed.

Since the law and order machinery in Manipur continues to stutter, the Supreme Court has stepped into the breach to monitor the situation and ensure that the Union and state government are held accountable for the steps they are taking against the violence.

As 2023 comes to a close, here is a recap of the history of violence in Manipur and the main directions passed by the court in response to various issues raised.

Manipur: A historically fractured place

Manipur has 34 recognised Scheduled Tribes, broadly falling under the Naga and Kukichin or Kuki tribal groups.

The peripheral hills, inhabited by the tribals, amount to around 90 percent of Manipur's total area whereas the central Imphal valley, where the dominant Meitei community primarily resides, makes up the remaining 10 percent of the state's area. The tribals are largely Christian, while a majority of Meiteis identify as Hindu.

Of the state's projected population of 36.49 lakh in 2023 (28.56 lakh in the 2011 census), of whom about 53 percent are Meiteis, an estimated 70 percent are settled in the Imphal valley, and the remaining 30 percent live in areas that belong to the tribals.

The majority Meiteis inhabiting a mere 10 percent of the state's landmass, coupled with their inability to buy land in the remaining 90 percent of tribal protected hill areas, which is declared as belonging Scheduled Tribes, has contributed to their demands to be included in the list of Scheduled Tribes.

Eruption of the violence

On March 27, Justice M.V. Muralidaran of Manipur High Court had directed the state government to consider the inclusion of the Meitei community in the list of Scheduled Tribes, and to send recommendation to this effect to the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks.

Also read: Manipur crisis part 1: What does one do when a judicial Order triggers a riot?

The high court was hearing petitions that prayed for the inclusion of the Meitei community as a Scheduled Tribe in Manipur "to preserve the said community and save the ancestral land, tradition, culture and language".

Reportedly, the high court Order led to tensions between Kukis and Meiteis. The tensions soon metamorphosed into violence following a Tribal Solidarity March, organised by the All Tribal Student's Union of Manipur (ATSUM), to protest against the Order of the Manipur High Court.

According to experts, however, the demand of the Meitei community to be included in the list of Scheduled Tribes is "only the spark", since there are other contributing factors that have led to the building up of grievances among tribal communities in Manipur.

Such factors include the state government's eviction of many tribes or 'forest dwellers' from reserved forest areas, recent withdrawal from the Suspension of Operations arrangement with the Kuki National Army and the Zomi Revolutionary Army, and the drive to eliminate 'illegal' poppy cultivation, which the Kuki tribal community depends on.

Court's intervention

As the violence spread, on May 9, the Supreme Court heard petitions that challenged the Order of the Manipur High Court and prayed for direction for evacuation, ensuring the safety and protection of those affected by the violence, protection of places of worship, and setting up of a special investigation team.

A three-judge Bench led by the CJI directed the Union and Manipur governments to undertake remedial measures to ensure the provision of necessities at relief camps, and necessary precautionary measures for the rehabilitation of displaced persons and the protection of religious places.

In order to be apprised of the steps taken periodically, the Bench directed the state government to submit status reports on the situation in Manipur.

On August 7, the Bench constituted a three-member expert committee headed by Gita Mittal, former Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, to oversee government actions— including relief, rehabilitation and compensation— for those impacted by the violence.

The Bench also appointed the director general of police, Maharashtra, Dattatray Padsalgikar, to oversee the investigation by the CBI.

The Bench directed the appointment of officers from outside the state to oversee the investigation by both the CBI and state police.

Since May this year, the court has taken cognisance of several issues concerning matters of relief and rehabilitation of the violence-affected people of the state and to bring the situation back into control.

Viral sexual assault case

On July 20, the three-Bench judge of the Supreme Court took suo moto cognisance of a gruesome incident of sexual violence against two Kuki-Zo women in Manipur, who were paraded naked by a mob.

Also read: Manipur crisis part 2: A Zo-Kuki perspective

The incident of sexual assault against the two women had reportedly taken place on May 4 in the Kangpokpi district but came to light only on July 19, after the video began to be widely circulated.

On July 27, the Union home ministry filed an affidavit informing the Supreme Court that it had accepted the Manipur government's recommendation for an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the incident.

The ministry also requested the court to transfer the entire case, including the trial of the offence in question, outside Manipur.

Restriction on movement

The violence soon escalated to a level where the state was divided into Meitei and Kuki zones. While the Meteis cannot enter the Kuki-majority hill areas, the Kukis are left out of the valley districts dominated by the Meitei community. 

In August, Indian National Congress leader Rahul Gandhi stated in the Parliament that it had become almost impossible for people belonging to Meitei and Kuki communities to travel to areas dominated by the other community.

Although most of the victims were killed at the start of the violence, in May, the bodies remained unclaimed or unidentified. This was due to several factors including displacement of families of the victims and morgues situated in areas that are "no-go zones" for either the Kuki or Meitei communities.

On August 25, heeding the government's suggestion, the court directed the trials pertaining to violence in Manipur to be conducted in Assam until the situation in Manipur improves.

The Bench directed the Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court to nominate one or more officers of the rank of a chief magistrate and session judge in Guwahati to hear the cases related to the violence.

The court allowed victim and witness statements to be recorded virtually.

Also read: Manipur crisis part 3: How can the State watch while Manipur burns?

In consideration of the distance and security issues, the Bench noted that applications for the production of the accused, remand, judicial custody and other proceedings in connection with the investigation should be heard virtually.

Attack on lawyers, activists and academics

In September, the houses of two lawyers in Imphal, who represented Dr Kham Khan Suan Hausing, were attacked.

Dr Hausing, a professor of political science at the University of Hyderabad, was charged under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for giving an interview on the Manipur crisis.

Dr Vijaykant Chenji, a retired colonel of the Indian army, was also charged for authoring a book The Anglo-Kuki War 1917–19 in January 2022. 

A first information report (FIR) was filed against Henminlun, alias Loon Gangte, the founder and President of the Delhi Network of Positive People, a network of people living with HIV/AIDS, for giving a speech that "disturbed public order and promoted enmity between groups".

Several fact-finding teams, such as those constituted by the National Federation of Indian Women and the Editors Guild of India, were booked by the Manipur police for charges under the IPC, including for 'conspiracy' and 'promoting enmity between different groups'.

The Supreme Court repeatedly allowed interim protection to the petitioners to allow them time to approach the Manipur High Court.

Recently, on December 5, the Supreme Court stayed the criminal proceedings against Fulbright fellow and journalist Makepeace Sitlhou over her tweets critical of the Manipur government concerning the ongoing ethnic violence in the state.

Directions on violence against women and children

On August 1, the court perused 11 first information reports lodged in Manipur from May 4 in respect of the violence against women and children, as per official records.

The Bench examined a series of petitions and intervention applications on the constitution of a special investigation team and other high-powered commissions to facilitate justice for the sexual assault and violence committed against women in Manipur.

The CJI remarked that the investigation by the local police has been "lethargic" and "tardy". He noted that complaints were registered two months after the incidents, statements made by the victims were recorded considerably late and the arrests made, in a case or two, are "few and far between".

Also read: Supreme Court stays criminal proceedings against Manipur journalist Makepeace Sitlhou

In view of the "considerable lapse" between the occurrence of the incidents, registration of FIRs, recording of statements of witnesses and arrests of accused persons, the CJI remarked that there had been a "complete breakdown of constitutional machinery and of law and order".

The CJI also berated the state police, describing it as incapable of carrying out investigations.

The Bench directed the government to submit a tabulated statement setting out several details, including the date of occurrences of the offences; the date of registration of 'zero FIRs'; and the date on which witness statements were recorded.

Directions on other issues

On September 1, the court directed the Union and Manipur governments to ensure the supply of food, medicines and other basic necessities in the violence-affected areas of the state.

The expert committee and the petitioners raised the concern that basic food supplies were unable to reach the residents in Moreh, a town on the Myanmar–India border, on account of the ongoing blockade in the region.

On September 6, the Bench directed the state government to file additional status reports on certain issues raised in the court such as the recovery of arms looted from police stations and camps, upgrading the victim compensation scheme of Manipur, and dealing with the dead bodies.

On September 25, the Bench sought assurance from the Advocate General for Manipur on appointing secretaries to the district legal services authorities (DLSA).

According to the expert committee's report, 16 districts in the state were covered by only nine secretaries of the DLSA.

The court directed the state government to place adequate funds at the disposal of the Manipur State Legal Services Authority for releasing compensation under the Manipur Victim Compensation Scheme, 2019.

Also read: What does the European Parliament's resolution on Manipur tell us about the tectonic shift in the discourse of universal human rights?

The petitioners had submitted that only 60 heirs have received ex gratia relief, but a much larger number are yet to be given any compensation. 

Reportedly, as of October 7, less than half of the families of all victims have received compensation of ₹5 lakh to ₹10 lakh. 

The Union government was also directed to nominate one nodal officer in Delhi to address the grievances of those who have temporarily settled or been displaced outside Manipur.

The nodal officer was given the mandate to guide petitions and complaints and direct the grievances through appropriate channels.

On December 4, the Supreme Court directed displaced students of Manipur University, Imphal to avail their education at two Central universities in Assam or Meghalaya, or through the online mode.

The Bench was hearing a plea by 284 students, seeking relocation to Central universities across the country. Having already lost a semester, the students pressed for the immediate relief of admission to Central universities in places where students have sought shelter.

On December 15, the court passed directions to ensure necessary arrangements to be facilitated to ensure the Christian community in the state is able to congregate and mark the festivities.

On the plea for restoration of places of worship destroyed during the ongoing violence, the court had directed the state government to furnish a comprehensive list of all places of worship that were damaged during the violence in the state.

Also read: Malaysians protesting against Manipur violence accuse Indian High Commission of double standards

Further, the committee was directed by the court to prepare a comprehensive proposal for the way forward, including regarding places of worship that were damaged or destroyed.

On November 28, the Supreme Court passed directions on the burial or cremation, as appropriate, of the bodies lying in the mortuaries of Manipur for months. The bodies are of victims who have been killed during the ongoing violence in the state.

The court had directed the authorities to permit the relatives of the victims, that are identified and claimed, to carry out burial in any of the nine sites identified by the states, without any threat.

In case the bodies remain unclaimed one week after the issuance of a public notice, the state government was directed to carry out the last rites of cremation or burial.

Following the Supreme Court's directions, the bodies of 87 tribal victims were laid to rest in the Churachandpur district of Manipur on December 20, just shy of Christmas, under tight security.

But the ghosts of 2023 will roam around in the streets and fields of Manipur, and the corridors of power in India, for a long, long time.