In a recent directive, the Supreme Court has instructed the Bar Associations in Manipur to ensure that no lawyer, irrespective of their community, is prevented from appearing before the courts. This directive was issued by a bench consisting of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra. The bench emphasized that this direction was not based on any specific complaint but was issued as a cautionary measure to guarantee that access to justice remains unhindered. They further stated that any breach of this directive would be considered contempt of the court’s order.
The directive was issued during the hearing of multiple petitions related to the ongoing ethnic clashes between the Meitei and Kuki communities in Manipur since May. Senior Advocate Anand Grover informed the Supreme Court that lawyers representing certain committees were facing threats, attacks, and were being obstructed from appearing before the Manipur High Court. Grover highlighted the need for protection for these lawyers, referencing instances where lawyers had withdrawn from cases due to threats. The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) had also previously expressed grave concerns regarding reports of attacks on lawyers in Manipur for representing specific cases.
CJI DY Chandrachud initially questioned the need for protection solely for lawyers, suggesting that all citizens should be protected. Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, representing the Manipur High Court Bar Association, denied the allegations, stating that all lawyers were granted access. The CJI then sought confirmation from the Association President, who affirmed that no lawyers were being barred based on their community affiliations.
Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, representing the State of Manipur, pointed out that the High Court was functioning normally, with over 2638 cases listed for hearing in the past 30 days and virtual hearing facilities available daily. He criticized the petitioners for attempting to exacerbate the situation.
To address any concerns regarding access to the Manipur High Court, the bench issued an order stating,
“There are nine judicial districts which cover all sixteen districts in Manipur. The State of Manipur, along with the Chief Justice of the High Court, shall ensure that video conference facilities are set up and operationalized so that any member of the bar or litigant can address the court. The video conferencing shall be operational within one week of this order.”
The court further added,
“The members of the bar shall ensure that no lawyer is prevented from appearing before the court. Any violation of this direction shall be treated as contempt.”
In conclusion, the CJI remarked,
“We have not acted on any complaint; we have just cautioned…we want to ensure access to justice.”
The case is titled Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei And Ors. Diary No. 19206-2023.
