Supreme Court seeks CBI’s status report on Manipur violence

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the CBI, which is probing 11 FIRs related to the 2023 Manipur ethnic violence cases, to submit a status report within two weeks.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi also mooted the idea that instead of the apex court, the jurisdictional Manipur High Court, which has a new chief justice, or the Gauhati High Court or both, monitor the trials and related developments in the violence cases.

It also asked the central and Manipur Governments to ensure implementation of the recommendations of the Justice Gita Mittal committee on rehabilitation and welfare of the victims of the ethnic violence in the State.

The court-appointed committee comprising Justice Mittal, the former chief justice of Jammu and Kashmir, and Justices Shalini P Joshi, a former judge of the Bombay High Court, and Asha Menon, an ex-judge of the Delhi High Court, have so far submitted several reports on measures to rehabilitate the victims.

More than 200 people have been killed, several hundred injured and thousands displaced since ethnic violence first broke out in Manipur on May 3, 2023, when a ‘Tribal Solidarity March’ was organised in the hill districts to protest against the majority Meitei community’s demand for Scheduled Tribe (ST) status.

At the outset, senior advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for one of the woman victims who passed away recently, said that she be substituted by her mother and accused that the CBI did not even inform her that a chargesheet in her rape case was filed.

Grover said the Kuki woman died last month from an illness allegedly linked to the trauma she suffered after being gang-raped. “I have accessed the trial court report. The main accused are not appearing. The CBI is not present. The casualness with which it is happening is shocking,” she alleged.

To this, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said, “Nobody can oppose what Grover is saying. The victim’s rights cannot be affected.”

“Let the CBI file a status report,” the CJI said, suggesting, “The monitoring part we can entrust to the (Manipur) High Court’s Chief Justice.” When lawyer Nizam Pasha said that the Gauhati High Court is already monitoring the trials, the bench said it was a “perfectly alright” order passed keeping in mind the surcharged atmosphere in Manipur.

The CJI said that either the jurisdictional High Court at Manipur or the Gauhati High Court or both can monitor the cases and asked the counsel to take instructions on this and come back in two weeks.

Mehta then said that the CBI could answer the issues raised by Vrinda Grover in the apex court or in the Manipur High Court, but the present situation in Manipur was peaceful, with regular movement of people, and that the local environment could be better appreciated by the High Court.

“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 they can be recorded,” CJI Surya Kant said.

“In view of the fact that a new Chief Justice has taken charge in the Manipur High Court and that to have an effective mechanism for coordination between Gauhati and Manipur High Courts, let there be instructions regarding the same,” the CJI added.

CJI Surya Kant said that instructions were required on the aspect of whether two Chief Justices could be entrusted with “varied monitoring”, following which a suitable mechanism could be evolved.

He said, “Let the CBI file a status report on the application of (Vrinda) Grover. Also, victims must be provided with free legal aid in these situations. We will order that if legal aid counsels (LACs) are not available on account of the earlier charged atmosphere, LACs from the Guwahati bar can go.”

Meanwhile, senior advocate Colin Gonsalves informed the court that he was representing a tribal body forum of the Manipur Kuki tribals.

“Two committees had been appointed. One for criminal justice and one for rehabilitation. Twenty-seven reports have been filed in this court, and we don’t have a single copy with us.

“The reason why we want this is that rehabilitation is at a standstill. Prosecution is very low,” he said.

The apex court, however, raised an apprehension regarding the sensitive content in the reports, which could reach “somewhere else”.

Gonsalves then said that sensitive portions could be redacted.

The matter has been posted for further proceedings on February 26.

Last month, the Supreme Court extended till July 31 the tenure of the apex court-appointed Justice Gita Mittal committee set up to oversee relief and rehabilitation of the victims of ethnic violence in Manipur.