A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has directed the Union and state governments to implement “positive actions” with respect to certain suggestions made by the petitioner and also file another report, within one week, on the action to bring Manipur back to normalcy.
—
ON Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard suggestions by the petitioners on the updated status report filed by the Manipur government in view of the unabating violence in the state.
A three-judge Bench, comprising the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra, perused a note containing the suggestions, filed by advocate Nizam Pasha and senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, among others.
The Bench directed the Union and state governments to take the suggestions into consideration by July 14 and file a report on the action taken within a week.
On Monday, a division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising the CJI and Justice P.S. Narasimha, had directed the petitioners to formulate and submit concrete suggestions based on the state government’s updated July 9 status report.
Suggestions were solicited regarding the difficulties faced on the ground in relation to rehabilitation camps and medical aid.
Nizam Pasha for Zomi Students Federation
On Tuesday, the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union and Manipur governments, read the suggestions formulated by Pasha on behalf of the petitioner, Zomi Students Federation.
The suggestions included sending doctors to the hill districts; provision of essential medicines, drinking water and food in relief camps; the need for deferring examinations by the Manipur University since schools and colleges in the hill districts have been converted into relief camps, and students and staff members have been forced to flee.
Suggestions were also made regarding the restoration of cellular services of Jio and Vodafone; withdrawal of a circular that threatens disciplinary action against government employees if they do not report to work; and exercise of appropriate restraint by officials from making provocative statements directed at a particular community.
Pasha’s plea to allow the petitioners to conduct a survey and submit a ground report was vehemently opposed by Mehta.
The Solicitor General told the court that it has become a “trend” or “habit” for people to visit areas facing law and order problems under the fancy sobriquet of “fact-finding teams” so that they can find new causes under which to move petitions in courts.
Pasha was critical of the state government’s notification of July 5, providing for the constitution of committees to oversee rescue and relief operations in seven districts of the state.
Pasha contended that of the 35 members of legislative assembly (MLAs) appointed to these committees, not a single MLA is from the Zo–Kuki tribal communities.
There are 40 Meitie MLAs in the current Manipur legislative assembly, with the rest of the 60 member assembly made up of ten Kuki–Zo and ten Naga MLAs.
The Bench directed the state government to duly consider the grievance and take action to restore public confidence in the state administration.
Gonsalves for Manipur Tribal Forum, Delhi
On behalf of another petitioner, the Manipur Tribal Forum, Delhi, senior advocate Gonsalves read his suggestions to the state government’s status report and reiterated that six assailant groups active in the state at present are notified as “terrorist organisations” under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, yet they are being protected by the state and Union governments.
Gonsalves highlighted that no complaint has been filed against the assailants who have allegedly declared their intention to “kill” or “annihilate” Kukis. He further alleged that calls for the genocide of Kukis are being made on national television.
Gonsalves urged that the assailants be arrested and in his suggestions sought directions from the court to constitute a special investigation team, independent of the Union government, to investigate the criminal actions of the assailants.
The CJI responded with a call to focus on “suggestions” instead of “allegations”.
The Bench directed the state government to consider the suggestion, made by Gonsalves, of disbursal of compensation and reconstruction of villages or places of worship that have suffered destruction in the recent clashes.
The Bench refused to accept the suggestion to issue specific directions to the Indian Army and paramilitary forces to take steps to ensure security in villages.
It noted that the maintenance of law and order and preservation of the security of the State fall under the “executive domain”.
It, however, directed the Union and the state governments to make sufficient arrangements to ensure the protection of the lives and properties of residents of Manipur.
On Gonsalves’ plea to take urgent steps to curb “extreme hate speech”, the Bench requested all parties “to maintain a sense of equilibrium in their public statements” and “to refrain from any form of hate speech”.
FIR against the fact-finding team
On July 8, a first information report (FIR) was filed at an Imphal police station against three members of a fact-finding team that had visited Manipur.
At the end of their visit to Manipur from June 28 to July 1, the members of the team had addressed a press conference and termed the ethnic tensions in Manipur as “state-sponsored violence”.
On Tuesday, a Supreme Court Bench granted interim protection from arrest, till July 14, by the Manipur police to advocate Deeksha Dwivedi, one of the members of the fact-finding team who is associated with the National Federation of Indian Women.
Dwivedi has been charged with serious offences, including sedition and conspiracy to wage war against India.
The Bench noted that Dwivedi has still not received a copy of the FIR and directed Mehta to receive instructions on the matter.
Background
On March 27, a single-judge Bench of the Manipur High Court of Justice M.V. Muralidaran had directed the state government to consider the inclusion of the Meitei community in the list of Scheduled Tribes and to send a recommendation to this effect to the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks.
Reportedly, the high court Order led to tensions between the Kuki tribe and the majority Meitei population. The Tribal Solidarity March, organised by the All Tribal Students’ Union of Manipur led to protests against the demand of the Meitei community to be included in the list of Scheduled Tribes.
The protests devolved into violence in the Bishnupur and Churachandpur districts of the state. Over the next few days, the violence quickly escalated to other districts of the state, leading to the loss of lives and destruction of homes, churches and temples.
