In a recent development concerning the Manipur violence cases, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, representing the judges’ committee constituted by the Supreme Court, raised objections to certain statements made against her in an affidavit. This affidavit was filed by the Chief Secretary of the Manipur Government.
Arora highlighted that the affidavit was a “direct attack” on her. She expressed her concerns, suggesting that she might consider recusing herself from appearing for the committee if such statements continued.
The State’s affidavit pointed out that during a hearing the previous week, Arora had mentioned that residents in specific parts of Manipur were deprived of basic rations. Furthermore, she highlighted an outbreak of Measles and Chickenpox in the region. The State government contended that such statements had incited panic among the residents.
The affidavit read,
“It is submitted that the said claims seem to have been made without any factual verification and without any consultation with the relevant government authorities which have created panic. It is submitted that petitioners/applicants were confining their argument only to Mereh, however, the State of Manipur is handling and taking care of the entire State.”
The State emphasized that such claims should have been verified with the relevant authorities before being presented in court.
This incident underscores the tension and challenges faced in the courtroom, especially in high-profile cases like the Manipur violence. The role of legal representatives and their statements can significantly influence the proceedings and the public’s perception.