Supreme Court slams Manipur government and Centre; Seeks response from government within 24 hours

New Delhi, 31 July (MTNews): The Indian government faced tough questions today on the disturbing incident in Manipur as the Supreme Court took up the petition of two women who were paraded naked and sexually assaulted by a mob. Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, firmly stated that what occurred in Manipur cannot be justified by citing similar crimes in other parts of the country like Bengal, Rajasthan, or Chhattisgarh.

“There is no gainsaying the fact that crimes against women are taking place in all parts. The only answer is this. You cannot excuse what is taking place in one part of the country, like Manipur, on the grounds that similar crimes are happening in other parts too.

The question is, how do we deal with Manipur? Mention that… Are you saying protect all daughters of India or don’t protect anyone?” the Chief Justice asked, responding to lawyer Bansuri Swaraj, who spoke about crimes against women in Bengal, Rajasthan, and Chhattisgarh.

The court raised six pointed questions and demanded a response within 24 hours from both the Centre and the Manipur government.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice emphasized that crimes against women were taking place nationwide, but that couldn’t be used as an excuse to ignore the situation in Manipur. He urged the authorities to address the issue at hand and questioned whether the government’s commitment was to protect all daughters of India or to protect no one at all. The court expressed deep concern about the systemic violence against women in Manipur and demanded urgent action.

“The government doesn’t have the data now to tell you how many such cases have been registered. That shows the state of affairs,” senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the two women, said while requesting a Supreme Court-monitored probe.

The government conceded that it did not have data on the number of registered cases, highlighting the pressing need for a comprehensive investigation and reporting system.

The court directed the Centre and Manipur government to provide detailed information on six points, including the number of cases registered, zero FIRs, transfers to the appropriate jurisdiction, arrests made so far, status of legal aid to the arrested, and the number of Section 164 statements recorded.

Describing the offences against women in Manipur as “horrendous,” the Supreme Court expressed reluctance in allowing the Manipur police to handle the case. It emphasized the importance of a healing touch in the state and called for a broader mechanism to address violence against women in the region.

The Centre’s request to transfer the case to a different state, such as neighboring Assam, was opposed by the victims, who expressed concerns about the CBI handling the inquiry. They requested a high-powered committee comprising women members from civil society to create an environment where survivors could come forward and share the truth without fear.

The two women, identified as “X” and “Y” in court documents to protect their identities, filed petitions against the Centre and the Manipur government, seeking a fair and impartial inquiry. They requested a probe led by an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a senior police officer and the transfer of the trial outside the state due to their lack of faith in the state police.

The Supreme Court’s intervention came on 20 July, following nationwide outrage over the video of the incident. A bench led by Chief Justice Chandrachud directed the Centre and the Manipur government to take immediate remedial, rehabilitative, and preventive steps and report the actions taken.

The Centre informed the court on 27 July that it had transferred the case to the CBI and assured “zero tolerance towards any crimes against women.” The Ministry of Home Affairs urged the court to transfer the trial outside Manipur to conclude it in a time-bound manner.

Seven people have been arrested in the case so far.

Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha adjourned following protest over Manipur violence

Meanwhile, both Houses of the Parliament were adjourned for the day today as opposition parties staged protests over the issue of violence in Manipur. The Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha saw repeated disruptions as opposition members trooped into the well, demanding a statement from Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the matter.

In the Lok Sabha, after the first adjournment at 2:00 PM, opposition parties including Congress, DMK, JD(U), and TMC continued their protest by raising slogans against the government. They were adamant about Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressing the House and clarifying the government’s stance on the situation in Manipur.

During the brief resumption of proceedings, Parliament passed The Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2023, amid the ongoing din. However, the uproar persisted, leading to the Presiding Officer adjourning the Lok Sabha for the day.

In the Rajya Sabha, the situation was no different. After the fourth adjournment at 3:30 PM, opposition members from Congress, TMC, DMK, Aam Aadmi Party, and Left parties continued with their sloganeering, demanding immediate action on the Manipur issue.

In response, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pralhad Joshi reassured the House that the government is ready for a discussion on the Manipur situation and requested that it be taken up without delay. Despite the government’s willingness to engage in a discussion, the pandemonium persisted, ultimately leading to the Rajya Sabha’s adjournment for the day.

Leader of the House, Piyush Goyal, expressed his disappointment, alleging that the opposition was avoiding a meaningful debate. On the other hand, Leader of Opposition, Mallikarjun Kharge, reiterated the opposition parties’ demand for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement in the House to address the concerns surrounding the Manipur issue.

The violence in Manipur has been a contentious topic, and the opposition parties’ insistence on the Prime Minister’s statement reflects their desire for clarity and accountability from the government on the matter.

(With inputs from agencies)