New Delhi The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Centre and the Manipur government to ascertain basic supply of food, medicines and other essential materials are not disrupted for the people affected or displaced due to ethnic strife in the state, calling it a “humanitarian aspect” requiring the court’s intervention.
Taking note of the reports of blockades in the state, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud ordered that all steps necessary to improve the situation, including removal of blockades, should be taken by both the central and state governments.
“We direct the government of India and the government of Manipur to distribute basic supply of food, medicine, and other essentials so that there is no denial of basic human facilities. The manner in which the blockade is dealt with is under law enforcement. However, considering the humanitarian aspect of the matter, the Government should explore all options including air dropping necessity, if necessary. The court shall be apprised of the steps taken to ameliorate the situation in the next hearing,” the order by the bench, also comprising justice JB Pardiwala, said.
The court order came after a committee of retired women judges brought up the issue of supplies of food and essential items to the victims of violence, especially those housed in relief camps. Senior counsel Meenakshi Arora, representing the committee, and Indira Jaising, appearing for one of the parties in the matter, submitted before the bench that blockades in the Moreh region of Manipur have prevented people from getting basic rations. They also raised the issue of an outbreak of measles and chickenpox in some relief camps.
Solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre and the state, assured the bench that the government is aware of the problem and that necessary steps shall be taken. Mehta added that removal of blockades was not an issue within the remit of the judges’ committee, which comprises justices Gita Mittal (former chief justice of the Jammu & Kashmir high court), Shalini P Joshi (former Bombay high court judge) and Asha Menon (former Delhi high court judge).
Responding, Jaisingh said: There is no food in Moreh area. The problem is the blockade. The committee cannot direct the armed forces to remove the blockade…otherwise we can provide the food supply.”
The bench, however, told her that removing blockades was “easier said than done” and was a complex and sensitive issue that required careful consideration, as these blockades were often set up by local individuals or groups.
“Removing a blockade is not about directing the armed forces to do it. There are sensitive issues. What we will do is that the govt is aware of the fact and that the govt will take appropriate steps after evaluating the situation,” it added.
Another counsel urged the court to note that such blockades had not only been affecting Moreh but also other areas including the National Highway 2, which runs from Dimapur (Nagaland) to Imphal).
Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for one of the petitioners in the matter, raised the issue of destruction of more than 200 churches in Manipur. The court asked him to share a copy of his plea with the office of SG Mehta and with the high-powered committee of retired judges.
While adjourning the case to September 6, the bench also asked the SG to take instructions on the issue of aligning the Manipur compensation scheme for the victims of violence with the scheme framed by the National Legal Services Authority (Nalsa) that provides for a higher quantum of compensation. “Once Nalsa has formulated a scheme, it should be applicable to the entire country,” the bench observed.
On the next date of hearing, the bench said it will also issue certain directions on the reports received by the high-powered panel on the efficacy of rescue, relief and rehabilitation measures. One of these reports highlighted loss of identity documents by the people affected by the violence while another one proposed appointment of domain experts to streamline the administrative aspects of the case proceedings.
Ethnic clashes between the tribal Kukis and dominant Meiteis first erupted on May 3 during a protest against a court-ordered tweak to the state’s reservation matrix, granting Scheduled Tribe status to the latter. The violence quickly engulfed the state where ethnic fault lines run deep, displacing tens of thousands of people who fled burning homes and neighbourhoods into jungles, often across state borders. At least 163 people have been killed in the violence.
Hearing a bundle of petitions that have sought an array of protective and rehabilitative orders, the court had on August 25 shifted 27 cases being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to a set of designated judges in Assam to ensure protection of victims and witnesses, besides facilitating fair and quick trials. Of these, 20 cases relate to the offences of rape, molestation and murder of women. One of these cases pertains to a horrific 30-second video clip of two Kuki women being stripped and paraded naked by a mob that prompted the apex court to take suo motu cognisance, and the subsequent hand over of the case to CBI by the Centre on July 28. Among the other seven cases, three are for looting weapons, two for murder, and one case each for rioting and conspiracy.
By an order on August 10, the apex court had appointed Dattatray Padsalgikar, former deputy national security adviser and ex-director general of police (DGP) of Maharashtra, to oversee investigations being carried out by CBI as well as by those conducted by the 42 special investigation teams (SITs), constituted by the Manipur government to probe more than 6,500 other first information reports (FIRs) registered in connection with the violence in the northeastern state. He has been given two months to submit a report.
