New Delhi, July 31.
The Supreme Court on Monday asked the central government several searching questions on what it had done so far to stem the sectarian violence in Manipur, why there was a delay in filing an FIR regarding a May incident in which two women were gang-raped and paraded naked in public, and held out hope of the court intervention by way of sending a non-partisan team to the state to “restore faith in the Constitution and rule of law”.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud suggested creating a non-partisan group, including civil society activists, judges and judicial officers of impeccable integrity, which will visit the state in a bid to instill faith in the administration and stop the violence that has been going on for months now. The central government was quick to stall the suggestion. “We will get back to the court on this,” the government’s top law officers told the bench.
The law officers sought more time to get back to the court with information sought by the court on the number of FIRs filed in the case, the break-up of cases to find out the cases of sexual assault during communal or sectarian strife, a standalone offence in the Indian Penal Code, and also what action had been taken so far against those named in the FIRs.
The CJI refused to give the government more time. “All this happened in May, we are now in July. All the evidence must have disappeared,” the CJI observed. “There’s also a need to restore the faith of the people of Manipur in the Constitution and rule of law,” he said, listing the case for a further hearing tomorrow. He dubbed the “systemic violence” against women during the strife as “horrific”. The CJI assured all parties that all violence would be dealt with even-handedly to allay fears expressed in court that the process may go against one community or the other.
The top court was hearing multiple pleas, including one filed by the two women paraded on the streets, which called for among things, court intervention to restore peace in the state and ensure justice. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the two women, opposed any CBI probe into the incident or transfer of trial to the neighbouring state of Assam.
He demanded a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the case on the ground that the two women, who were in the protective custody of the local police, were given up to the mob by the police themselves. It has to be an agency on which the victims must have confidence, he said.
Lawyers appearing for multiple parties such as women’s groups and activists urged the court to create a SIT to probe the case. The central government, which had earlier said that the case would be entrusted to the CBI and could be monitored by the top court, opposed this.
Senior advocates Colin Golsalves, Indira Jaising and advocates Vrinda Grover and Shobha Gupta, also sought a separate “truth and reconciliation” commission to lend a healing touch to the affected in the state and restore public confidence. Civil society activists and former judges and lawyers of impeccable standing without any political affiliations could form such a group, they said.
Gonsalves said that any SIT must not only record statements of victims but also look into the larger conspiracy behind the violence. “They are happening in a collective and coordinated fashion.”
The government of India opposed this suggestion as well. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the state and the central governments had taken a number of steps to restore peace and hasten the rehabilitation of those displaced from their homes. Mehta and the Attorney General also rejected a charge that the relief camps had run out of “rations”.
Gupta sought action against the erring police officers in the state.
The court demanded to know what the central government had done so far to stem the tide of violence, and what action it had taken in the thousands of FIRs that had been filed so far in connection with the sectarian strife. It demanded the break up of these cases so that it could examine how many were sexual assault cases and how many murders.
The bench also shrugged off an attempt to liken the Manipur violence to the violence against women in other Opposition ruled states such as Bengal. The same mechanism may be used in such cases in other states, advocate Bansuri Swaraj said. The CJI was emphatic that the systemic violence against women during the sectarian strife in Manipur was different from crimes against women.
“Undoubtedly crimes take place against women across the country – that is a social reality. But here we are dealing with something of an unprecedented nature – systemic violence against women in a situation of communal and sectarian strife,” the CJI said.
“Are you saying we must protect all women or don’t protect anyone? We cannot justify the Manipur incident by saying similar incidents have happened in Bengal,” he said.
The CJI asked several pointed questions to the law officers on the delay in filing an FIR into the crime against the two women which had shocked the court’s conscience and forced it to act. The incident happened on May 4th? Why was the FIR filed on May 18th? It is not possible that the local police were not aware of the incident, the CJI observed. “What was the police doing?”
The court observed that there was a delay in sending the case to a magistrate too. “You say that there are over 6000 cases? How many of them involve sexual assault?”
The CJI went on to then declare his intention to send in a non-partisan group of persons, men and women of impeccable integrity with no political affiliations, to visit the state to demonstrate the court’s concerns, lend a healing touch and restore the faith in the administration there. He also sought to know what kind of relief package the centre would offer the state to help people rebuild their lives after the recent traumatic incidents in which they have been forced to flee from their homes for personal safety.
The CJI observed that many things would have to be addressed in the process — have the statements of the women victims recorded at their doorsteps and rebuild lives.
It is not clear whether the same committee will record the statements of the victims. In that case, the court will have to empower them to record evidence like police or create another SIT to deal with the progress in investigation into the criminal cases. These could then be monitored by the top court. “We are running out of time. Three months have gone,” the CJI said.
He sought immediate details to help the court arrive at a decision – how many FIRs, break up of these FIRs, how many arrested so far, statements recorded so far, legal aid, how many cases forwarded to the jurisdictional magistrate etc.
