Supreme Court Raises Concerns Over Sluggish Investigation And Calls For Accountability In Manipur Ethnic Violence Case

The Supreme Court expressed deep distress over the sluggish and delayed investigation into the tragic loss of human lives, dignity, and properties during the ethnic violence in Manipur. They expressed sorrow over the complete breakdown of constitutional machinery in the state for a period of two months. As a result, the Court has summoned the Director General of Police (DGP) of the state to provide an explanation on August 7th.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud stated that the state police's investigative capability is evidently lacking, and it is undeniable that they have lost control over maintaining law and order in Manipur. The situation in the state appears to be devoid of any law and order. The investigation process has been extremely sluggish, with no FIRs being registered and arrests not being made for a prolonged period of two months since May 3. Furthermore, victim statements were recorded after significant delays.

The bench instructed the Director General of Police (DGP) to present all relevant records pertaining to the dates of incidents, the timing of FIR registrations, arrests made, and the recordings of victim statements.

The bench raised concerns that the inability to even register FIRs for such an extended period may suggest a complete breakdown of law and order and constitutional machinery in the state. It acknowledged the possibility that the police might have been unable to make arrests due to their inability to enter certain localities, but questioned whether this circumstance indicates a severe breakdown in the state's law and order and constitutional framework. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta was posed with this question by the bench, which also included justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

According to Article 356 of the Constitution, the breakdown of constitutional machinery serves as a basis for the imposition of President's Rule in a state.

Mehta, representing the N Biren Singh government, countered that the state has not experienced a complete breakdown of constitutional machinery. He argued that there was no lethargy in the investigation after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was tasked by the Union government to probe the case involving a video of two women being stripped and paraded naked.

However, the bench quickly responded by questioning the safety and protection of the people living in the state if the law and order machinery fails to safeguard them.

Regarding the viral video case from May 4, where three women were stripped, and at least one of them was gang-raped, with her brother and father being killed, the bench highlighted that the victims' statements indicated they were handed over to a frenzied mob by the police.

The bench questioned Mehta about the progress made after the victims' statements were recorded. They asked whether the personnel involved in the incident were identified or arrested and whether the Director General of Police (DGP) had taken any steps to investigate the matter. The bench emphasized that it is the DGP's responsibility to conduct such inquiries.

Mehta, in response, urged the bench to wait for the preliminary investigation by the CBI to conclude. He further informed the bench that out of the 6,523 FIRs filed, 11 of them involved offenses against women and children. He proposed handing over these 11 FIRs to the CBI.

However, the bench raised concerns about the remaining 6,000-plus FIRs, stating that the state police appeared incapable of handling such a vast number of cases. They warned that transferring all the cases to the CBI could overwhelm the agency, leading to its dysfunction. The bench stressed the importance of establishing a mechanism to categorize the FIRs and identify serious offenses like murder, rape, destruction of homes and places of worship, severe bodily injuries, and other such crimes.

Regarding Mehta's statements about the Centre's intervention, the bench observed that the records clearly show that during the two-month period between May 3 and July, the police were not effectively in charge. Their actions were superficial, and they appeared either incapable or unwilling to take charge.

While granting permission to the CBI to record the statements of the victims involved in the May 4 incident, which was handed over to the agency by the Centre on July 27, the court expressed its consideration for forming a committee. This committee would comprise former high court judges and other experts, and its role would be to provide recommendations on relief, rehabilitation, compensation, and ensuring a fair investigation process.

The bench advised Mehta that before making a decision, they should consider hearing both sides and carefully assess who will conduct the investigation. With approximately 6,500 FIRs, it is evident that transferring all of them to the CBI is not feasible. There are significant limitations to the state police handling such a large number of cases.

The clashes between the Meitei and Kuki communities started on May 3 during a protest against a high court order proposing scheduled tribe (ST) status to the Meiteis. The violence rapidly spread throughout the state, where deep-rooted ethnic tensions exist, leading to the displacement of tens of thousands of people who fled their burning homes and neighborhoods, often crossing state borders to seek safety in jungles. The ongoing violence has resulted in the loss of at least 150 lives so far.

In response to the escalating clashes, the authorities promptly imposed a curfew and cut off internet services, while deploying additional security forces to quell the spreading violence.

On June 4, at the recommendation of the state government, the Union government established a three-member judicial inquiry panel to investigate the ethnic violence in Manipur. Simultaneously, a series of petitions related to the violence in the northeastern state were presented before the top court. The court has been actively overseeing rescue, relief, and rehabilitation measures since the third week of May. On July 20, the court also took suo motu cognizance of a distressing video depicting the assault on three women on May 4. It described the video as a severe infringement of constitutional rights and stated its intention to intervene if the Centre and the state did not take appropriate action.

During the proceedings on Tuesday, Mehta informed the bench that he was unable to provide a breakdown of incidents involving serious offenses such as murder and destruction of houses out of the 6,523 FIRs. The bench expressed dissatisfaction with this insufficient information and ordered the state to segregate and inform the court about the number of FIRs dealing with murder, rape, arson, looting, destruction of property, outraging the modesty of women, destruction of places of religious worship, and cases of grievous hurt.

The order also noted that based on the preliminary data, it appears that the investigation has been slow, with significant delays between the occurrence of incidents and the registration of FIRs. There have been few arrests made and witness statements recorded. To help the court assess the nature of the investigation, the bench directed the Director General of Police (DGP) of Manipur to appear in person before the court on August 7.

Additionally, the court instructed that the tabular statement provided by the DGP for each FIR should include information about whether the accused have been named in the FIR and the current status of their arrest, along with other relevant details mentioned above.