Today, On 13th February, The Supreme Court asked the CBI for a detailed status report on Manipur violence cases, noting oversight should shift to the Manipur and Gauhati High Courts. It said the Chief Justices could oversee monitoring to coordinate.
The Supreme Court suggested that the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts could oversee the conduct of trials related to the violent clashes in Manipur in 2023.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised concerns about whether a remote committee could effectively monitor these proceedings.
Instead, the Court proposed that the Chief Justices of the Manipur High Court and the Guwahati High Court collaborate on this monitoring task.
Read Also: Manipur violence committee report
The Court ordered,
“In view of the fact that a new Chief Justice has taken charge in Manipur High Court and in order to have an effective (monitoring) mechanism by coordination between Guwahati and Manipur High Courts. Let there be instructions regarding the same,”
The Supreme Court also requested a status update from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on cases related to the violence, following complaints about deficiencies in the agency’s performance.
Since an order from the Supreme Court in August 2023, trials connected to the Manipur violence have been held in Assam, with parties allowed to participate via video conference from Manipur.
CJI Kant emphasized,
“There is a new Chief Justice in the High Court. This can go to the HC. How will a committee sitting here look into it? We can ask the Chief Justices of Manipur and Guwahati High Courts to coordinate and see how victims’ statements need to be handled and how it can be recorded … Please (get) instructions … If the two Chief Justices can be entrusted with varied monitoring … Whatever mechanism is needed (to help in this effort) can be evolved.”
The clashes in Manipur stemmed from opposition by certain tribes to the Meitei community’s demand for Scheduled Tribes status.
Earlier, On April 19, 2023, the Manipur High Court instructed the state government to consider including the Meetei/Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribe list, which led to violent ethnic confrontations between the Meitei and Kuki–Zo groups.
The Supreme Court intervened after a shocking video surfaced, prompting it to take suo motu cognizance and issue directives aimed at preventing further violence and aiding victims.
The Manipur High Court also retracted its controversial April 2023 directive in 2024. During a recent hearing, advocate Vrinda Grover brought attention to a case where the family of a woman killed during the violence was not informed of a filed chargesheet, highlighting instances where accused individuals and the CBI failed to attend trial hearings.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta responded by affirming that the CBI must address these issues.
He stated,
“Nobody can oppose what Ms. Grover is saying. The victim’s rights cannot be affected. CBI must answer on Ms Grover’s plea, whether here or in High Court,”
He also assured the Court that the situation in Manipur is stabilizing and agreed with the suggestion that the High Court is better positioned to manage monitoring efforts.
CJI Kant remarked that the CBI should provide a status update and stressed the importance of offering free legal assistance to victims unable to afford representation.
He stated,
“Let CBI file a status report to the application by Ms Grover. Also, victims must be provided free legal aid in these situations. We will order that if legal aid counsels are not available on account of earlier charged atmosphere … Legal aid counsels from Guwahati Bar can be (engaged),”
As the session concluded, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves raised concerns about the lack of shared reports from committees previously assigned to monitor criminal cases and the rehabilitation of victims.
He mentioned,
“We represent the tribal body forum, which consists of the Kukis. Two committees were appointed. One for criminal justice and one for rehabilitation. 27 reports have been filed in this Court and we don’t have a single copy with us.”
CJI Kant noted that the unavailability of these reports might be due to their sensitive nature.
He replied,
“If a report is given in this court and if there is sensitivity in them, then before it reaches you … it will go somewhere else. Please don’t say all this here. It’s reported. Let us also go through, and then we will see,”
The case is set to be heard again on February 26.