Supreme Court’s unwavering resolve to tackle Manipur’s crisis

The apex court has sent a strong message: it intends to get to the bottom of the ethnic violence and humanitarian crisis.

A victim of the ongoing ethnic violence in Manipur with her newborn child at a relief camp for displaced tribals in Imphal on August 12, 2023. | Photo Credit: AFP

The ongoing ethnic violence in Manipur and the horrific video depicting two Kuki women paraded naked in the State together triggered the activist streak of the Supreme Court in a case it was hearing: Dinganglung Gangmei vs Mutum Churamani Meetei and Others. In this case, the court was initially concerned with the violent aftermath of an erroneous order passed by the Manipur High Court on March 27, directing the State government to recommend the inclusion of the Meitei community in the Presidential List of Scheduled Tribes within a stipulated time frame.

The court sought to ensure the availability of critical medical care for those in relief camps and rehabilitative measures for those affected in the ethnic violence. Soon, however, it was called upon to expand the ambit of its hearing in response to petitions about threats to the safety of people in vulnerable villages.

Justified activism

On August 7, a bench of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra outlined two broad objectives which its directions must subserve: First, there was a need to ensure that the violence ceased and its perpetrators were punished according to procedures established by law so that faith and confidence in the justice system was restored. Secondly, there was a pressing need to ensure that the rule of law was restored and public confidence in the investigative and prosecutorial process sustained.

The bench then constituted a committee of three former women judges: Justice Gita Mittal, former Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court; Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, former judge of the Bombay High Court; and Justice Asha Menon, former judge of the Delhi High Court. Its mandate was to inquire into the nature of the violence against women that occurred in Manipur from May 4 from all available sources, including personal meetings with survivors, members of the families of survivors, local/community representatives, authorities in charge of relief camps, the FIRs, and media reports. The bench directed the committee to submit a report on the steps that were required to meet the needs of the survivors, including measures for dealing with rape trauma, and providing social, economic, psychological support, and relief and rehabilitation in a time-bound manner.

Chief Justice of India Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. | Photo Credit: Ayush Sharma/ANI

The committee was mandated to, among other things, ensure free and comprehensive medical aid and psychological care to victims and survivors, conditions of dignity in relief camps set up for displaced persons, payment of compensation and restitution to victims of violence, provision of toll-free helplines for updates on investigations, missing persons, and the recovery of dead bodies, besides issuing directions for the appointment of nodal officers at relief camps.

The bench directed the committee to file a compliance report before the court within six weeks with full particulars of cases, victims/witnesses, and compensation awarded with dates of payments and the persons to whom the payments were made.

The bench noted that there were 11 FIRs involving cases of sexual violence against women and children, as claimed by the Manipur Police, and gave details of the cases in its August 7 judgment. The bench also noted that there were six more FIRs brought to its notice by the petitioners in the Zomi Students Federation case. The bench directed the authorities to verify these FIRs, and if they involved offences of a similar nature to those that had been referred to the CBI, then take similar action within two weeks, followed by the submission of a status report within three weeks.

The court appointed Dattatray Padsalgikar, former Director General of Police, Maharashtra, to supervise both the CBI investigation into the FIRs transferred to it and the investigation by the State machinery into the remaining FIRs.

The bench directed the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to place five officers who are at least of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police from the States of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Odisha, and the NCT of Delhi at the disposal of the CBI. At least one of the officers, it said, should be a woman.

Specifically, the bench requested Padsalgikar to investigate allegations that certain police officers colluded with the perpetrators of the violence (including sexual violence). “The Union Government and the State Government shall provide any assistance required in order to carry out this investigation. The findings shall be submitted to this court in the form of a report,” the bench said.

People look at portraits of victims who lost their lives during ethnic clashes as empty coffins are kept at a memorial in Churachandpur district in the northeastern state of Manipur, on July 24. | Photo Credit: ARUN SANKAR/AFP

The bench made it clear that in cases where the FIR related to a sexual offence, in addition to any other crime, Special Investigation Teams (SITs) consisting of women officers shall be in charge of the entire investigation. The bench directed the SITs to visit each relief camp within the area assigned to it and make it known that it was an impartial body accepting complaints of violence (including sexual violence). The court asked the SITs to follow the prescriptions in law intended to prevent the re-traumatisation of women survivors of sexual violence. It also declared that the SITs constituted by the State of Manipur shall not consist exclusively of members belonging to either one of the communities involved in the clashes.

The three-judge committee and Padsalgikar were directed to submit their reports to the court within two months, elaborating the progress made in their inquiries. The bench promised to issue further directions for the shifting of the trials outside Manipur.

Behind the intervention

The court’s August 7 intervention was the outcome of a series of hearings it held to deal with the evolving situation in Manipur at various levels ever since the violence began.

Thus, in Zomi Students Federation vs Union of India, a related public interest petition pending before the court,the petitioners submitted 13 specific suggestions to restore peace in the region. They ranged from supervision and management of relief camps to provision of compensation to victims of the sectarian strife.

In Manipur Tribal Forum, Delhi, vs The State of Manipur and Another, the Supreme Court endorsed the suggestion to pay an interim compensation of Rs.10 lakh for every tribal person killed in the list of 118 tribal victims submitted by the State government. The court also directed the State government to reconstruct 141 tribal villages and 227 churches destroyed in the violence and to provide security so that the tribal people could return.

Highlights

• The Supreme Court was initially concerned with the violent aftermath of an erroneous order passed by the Manipur High Court on March 27, directing the State government to recommend the inclusion of the Meitei community in the Presidential List of Scheduled Tribes within a stipulated time frame.
• On August 7, a bench of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra outlined two broad objectives which its directions must subserve.
• First, there was a need to ensure that the violence ceased and its perpetrators were punished according to procedures established by law and secondly, there was a pressing need to ensure that the rule of law was restored and public confidence in the investigative and prosecutorial process sustained.
• It constituted a committee of three former women judges with a mandate to inquire into the nature of the violence against women.

Horrific video

On July 20, the court took suo motu notice of the video that surfaced on social media the previous day depicting the perpetration of sexual assault and violence on two Kuki women in Manipur. Rather than initiate a separate case in response to the video, the court, as an expression of its anguish and concern, took the proceedings on board in the pending case (as they were related). The court observed that “using women as instruments for perpetrating violence is simply unacceptable in a constitutional democracy”. While noting that it was “deeply disturbed by the visuals”, it said that what was portrayed in the video indicated gross constitutional violations and infractions of human rights.

It called for reports indicating the steps taken by the government (i) to hold the perpetrators accountable; and (ii) to ensure that such incidents were not repeated. Both the Union government and the State government were directed to take immediate steps—remedial, rehabilitative and preventive—and to apprise the court of the action taken by the next date of hearing.

On August 1, the State government informed the court that a total of 6,523 FIRs had been registered as on July 25, and that 150 persons had lost their lives and 502 had been injured in the violence between May 3 and June 9. The State reported that it had filed 5,101 cases of arson, which led to the arrests of 252 persons and 12,740 preventive arrests. It further claimed that 11 FIRs dealt with cases of violence against women and children, though this was subject to further verification. Seven arrests were reportedly made in connection with these 11 FIRs.

The court directed the State government to disaggregate the 6,523 FIRs on the basis of the offences, namely, murder and/or rape and outraging of modesty; arson and looting; destruction of house property and places of religious worship; and grievous hurt.

Justice Gita Mittal, former Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court and member of the three-member committee formed to inquire into the nature of the violence against women that occurred in Manipur. | Photo Credit: V.V. KRISHNAN

Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, former judge of the Bombay High Court and member of the three-member committee. | Photo Credit: By Special Arrangement

Justice Asha Menon, former judge of the Delhi High Court and member of the three-member committee. | Photo Credit: By Special Arrangement

The court highlighted that there was an unexplained delay between the occurrence of the crimes in early May and the registration of the FIRs and the recording of witness statements, let alone making arrests, which, the court quipped, “have been few and far between”.

Such lapses in investigation by the Manipur Police dismayed the Supreme Court because of the magnitude of the offences. The court held that in cases involving a bodily or sexual offence, it was necessary to conduct a medical examination of the victim immediately after the FIR was registered without any delay (provided the victim consented to such examination). This is because one of the crucial pieces of evidence which has great probative value in a trial is the nature and severity of the injuries sustained by the victim. The existence of that injury has to be proved to the satisfaction of the court.

Time is especially of the essence in a complaint of sexual offence. A medical examination may result in the recovery of the DNA of the accused from the clothing or the body of the victim/survivor. It may also result in the identification and recording of the nature and severity of injuries sustained by the victim/survivor.

The Supreme Court observed: “Subjecting women to sexual crimes and violence is completely unacceptable and constitutes a grave violation of the constitutional values of dignity, personal liberty and autonomy all of which are protected as core fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. Mobs commonly resort to violence against women for multiple reasons, including the fact that they may escape punishment for the crimes if they are a member of a larger group. In times of sectarian violence, mobs use sexual violence to send a message of subordination to the community that the victims or survivors hail from. Such visceral violence against women during conflict is nothing but an atrocity. It is the bounden duty of the state—its foremost duty, even—to prevent people from committing such reprehensible violence and to protect those whom the violence targets.”

In paragraph 18 of the August 7 judgment, the Supreme Court resolved that its intervention will be a step towards the guarantee of non-repetition that victims of such crimes are entitled to.

The bench made it clear that every officer or employee of the state who is guilty not only of dereliction of their constitutional and official duties but of colluding with perpetrators to become offenders themselves must be held accountable without fail.

The court has directed listing of further proceedings in the cases on October 13. But now the focus is on the reports of Padsalgikar and the committee of three former women judges.

V. Venkatesan is an independent legal journalist.