SC To Consider Appointing A Panel For Probing Manipur Incident, Requests Reports On FIRs Filed In The State

The Supreme Court expressed concern over the delay in filing an FIR in the case of two women being paraded naked in Manipur.

It raised the issue of "systemic acts of violence" and suggested the possibility of intervention. This could involve setting up a team of officers or judges who are not politically aligned.

The court also requested information on the 6,000 FIRs filed in the state and the actions taken.

The court emphasized that a court-appointed team would not replace the investigating officers but would provide a "healing touch". Such a team would send a message that the highest constitutional court of the country is deeply concerned about the situation.

Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud stated that the extent of the court's intervention would depend on the government's actions so far. If the government has taken adequate measures, the court may not intervene.

However, if the court is not satisfied with the government's response, and it feels a grave and urgent need to intervene, it will do so.

During the hearing of various petitions on the violence in Manipur, including the incident of women being paraded naked and assaulted on May 4, the Bench consisting of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was present.

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) questioned the police's inaction from May 4 to May 18 regarding an incident where women were paraded naked in front of a mob, with at least two of them being raped.

The CJI expressed his concern over the delay in registering an FIR, stating that there was no justification for not registering a zero FIR immediately after May 4, since the assailants were unknown.

The Attorney General, R Venkataramani, requested the court to allow more time to investigate the sequence of events, emphasizing the complexity of the issue at hand.

The Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre and the state government, informed the court that the incident was brought to the notice of the police on the 18th. He mentioned that arrests were made within 24 hours after the video of the incident went viral.

He also stated that around 20 FIRs were registered in the specific police station involved and approximately 6,000 FIRs were registered in the entire state.

The CJI expressed his dissatisfaction with the need to wait for arrests to be made before the local police station becomes aware of such incidents. He emphasized that it is unacceptable for the police to be unaware of such incidents and stressed the importance of immediate action.

The Central government has transferred the investigation of the case to the CBI and has requested the court to move the trial out of Manipur.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the two women victims, expressed their opposition to transferring the case to the CBI. Instead, they requested the establishment of an SIT to conduct the investigation. Sibal also objected to moving the trial to Assam.

Attorney General Mehta clarified that the Centre did not specifically suggest moving the trial to Assam, but rather proposed that the court could relocate it anywhere in the country. He explained that the case was transferred to the CBI to ensure a neutral investigation and assured that they have nothing to hide.

He also suggested that the court could monitor the investigation.

The Chief Justice of India expressed surprise that the state of Manipur is still unaware of the facts surrounding the case, which have been widely reported in the media. While not implying complicity at this stage, the CJI highlighted statements from the victims alleging that the police handed them over to the mob.

This underscores the need for an investigation conducted by a neutral party, rather than the local police, he stressed.

The court inquired about the progress made on the remaining FIRs, seeking details such as the breakdown of the 6,000 FIRs, the number of zero FIRs, the ones forwarded to the jurisdictional police stations, the actions taken, the number of arrests and individuals in judicial custody, the cases involving Section 156(3), the provision of legal aid to victims, and the number of Section 164 statements recorded so far.

The government was given until Tuesday to respond.

Regarding the CBI probe, the court questioned whether this particular incident was the only one involving acts of violence against women and inquired about the number of similar FIRs.

The CJI also raised the question of whether the CBI would be able to investigate all the related FIRs, including the possibility of 1,500 FIRs dealing with offenses against women or even the total of 6,000 FIRs.

The Solicitor General promised to gather the necessary information and provide a report to the court.

The court stated that the request to transfer the trial would be addressed at a later stage, as the current concern is ensuring a proper investigation.

The CJI emphasized the importance of instilling faith in the community, particularly in the constitutional process and the rule of law.

In contrast to the Nirbhaya case, which involved a single horrendous rape, the present case involves systemic acts of violence during communal or sectarian strife, the court said. The court also highlighted the significance of having a specialized team for the investigation, as recognized by the penal code.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising proposed the formation of a committee of women to engage with the victims and submit a report to the court. The court would then decide the subsequent steps based on the report.

The court acknowledged the request and asked for the government's response. They emphasized that the investigation will not replace the role of the investigating officers, but rather serve as a means to restore faith in the administration and address the ongoing violence in Manipur.

The court-appointed team will consist of officers or judges who are impartial and detached from any political affiliations. Their objective will be to provide an unbiased view of the situation on the ground, assist in rehabilitation efforts, and engage with the victims in relief camps.

Mehta argued against the committee's ability to conduct an investigation.

In response, the CJI clarified that the proposed committee's role is not to investigate, but rather to assist the court in framing issues related to rehabilitation. The focus is on rebuilding lives and providing objective assistance.

While the Manipur government may offer objective assistance, the court seeks the additional reassurance of a committee trusted by the court to ensure objectivity, he added.

The court emphasized the need to establish specific modalities for the investigation, such as the recording of Section 164 statements. They highlighted the importance of reaching out to victims, particularly those in relief camps who have suffered significant losses.

The court stressed the necessity of ensuring that the process of justice is accessible to these individuals and that their statements are recorded in conducive conditions.

The Attorney General once again requested for an extension of time, but the CJI expressed concern about the delay. It had been two months since the incident occurred, and crucial evidence may have been destroyed or lost.

Additionally, there was a possibility that the witnesses to the incident might no longer be available, said the CJI while denying the request.