The Supreme Court of India, in a recent ruling, declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought the establishment of a commission to resolve ongoing ethnic conflicts among the Nagas, Meiteis, and Kukis in Manipur. The bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, was hearing the PIL filed by three petitioners, including a victim of the violence, a public-spirited citizen, and a law student.
Also read- Supreme Court Stays Proceedings Against Journalist Over Manipur Tweets (lawchakra.in)
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the petitioners, argued for the necessity of a commission to facilitate a truce between the conflicted communities. He stated,
“My lords, the reason is this – we have to take a step back and take a look at the fact this Court, unfortunately, or fortunately, is the one institution everybody is looking towards in situations like this… You have done in the past which is why I am saying, a commission of enquiry which sits and just maybe a former judge of this court to get these communities together at a table… because this is continuing my lords… You’re going to have representatives of various communities at each other’s throats some accusing the Govt. Of India, others accusing the Govt. of Nagaland, nobody is attempting to ensure that there is some truce.”
However, the bench found the reliefs sought in the petition to be “too vague” and expressed reservations about the scope and effectiveness of such commissions. Chief Justice Chandrachud remarked that these matters might require “a resolution by the Political Executives” due to their complexity. He suggested that the petitioners approach the committee chaired by Justice (retired) Gita Mittal, which was already looking into related issues. The Chief Justice said,
“If you want, You can go to Justice Gita Mittal (committee) with a specific issue on what can happen and what can be done if she says I don’t have a remit then come back to us.”
The bench concluded that if there were any specific grievances, they could be brought to the attention of the Mittal Committee. The Chief Justice emphasized the limitations of the judiciary in ensuring performance on the ground and the importance of executive intervention, stating,
“Unless there’s a clear way forward that we envisage that our intervention will lead to a certain situational change on the ground, otherwise what happens is you know, expectations are aroused, that well you know the Court is not doing something. It is going to divert the attention, it is the responsibility of the executive to do this… Us taking on a role in which we can never do, we have no means to ensure performance on the ground only affects our legitimacy.”
This ruling comes against the backdrop of dissatisfaction expressed by Kuki civil society organizations, the Indigenous Tribal Leaders’ Forum (ITLF), and the Committee on Tribal Unity (COTU), who claimed that the Mittal Committee had only met with a few tribal leaders and ignored leading civil society organizations of the Kuki community.
The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the challenges in judicial intervention in complex ethnic conflicts and underscores the need for political and administrative solutions to such deep-rooted issues.
Also read- Supreme Court Upholds Parliament’s Power To Form Union Territory Of Ladakh From J&K (lawchakra.in)
