New Delhi: The Supreme Court asked Tuesday whether law and order worked in Manipur from the beginning of May – when ethnic clashes began – to the end of July.
“There was no law, the police could not even register an FIR, it could not arrest,” a top court bench noted as it heard petitions against the three-month long violence in the northeastern state.
“One thing is clear. There has been a long delay in the registration of FIRs,” said the bench, while hearing arguments in the case of the two Kuki women who were paraded naked and sexually abused on 4 May.
The bench slammed the state police for its “lethargic investigation” into the state-wide unrest. “Except in one or two cases, there have been no arrests at all… investigation lethargic, delay in FIRs, statements not recorded,” the bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Centre, said: “This is no justification, but with the situation on the ground so bad…”
Mehta also told the apex court that the police may have registered an FIR in the case of the two tribal women paraded naked only after a video of the act surfaced online. This was two months after the incident took place on 4 May.
The bench retorted: “This gives us the impression that from the beginning of May to the end of July, there was no law. There was an absolute breakdown of machinery that you could not even register an FIR.”
“Does it not point to the fact that there was an absolute breakdown of law and order and machinery of the state,” the bench asked.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, told the court that 6,532 FIRs have so far been registered on the violence but could not find details of the “immediate response” in case of the two abused women.
The apex court has asked the Director General of Police, Manipur, to be present in court when it hears the case next on 7 August.
The court also observed that an FIR into another incident on 4 May when a woman was dragged out of her car and her son lynched was registered only on 7 July. “Section 354 has been mentioned (outraging modesty of a woman), there is one on house burning, but no 302 (murder)?” the bench asked after it read the FIR.
In the case of the rape and murder of two Kuki women who worked in a car wash, Mehta informed the court that 37 witnesses had been examined, and 14 employees of the car wash were in the process of being probed.
The top court was hearing a batch of pleas filed on the Manipur violence – particularly the sexual abuse of the two Kuki women – since clashes broke out on 3 May over the majority Meiteis’ demand for Scheduled Tribe status. The tag, which brings economic benefits, was so far reserved for the tribes in the state’s poorly-developed hill areas.
On Monday, the apex court asked the central and state governments several searing questions, particularly over the legal steps taken to book culprits and the quality of state aid to those put up in relief camps.
It also slapped down a submission to “normalise” the crimes against women in the strife-torn state – particularly that of the two tribal women – when an intervening advocate said such crimes were taking place in other states too, like the Opposition-ruled West Bengal and Chhattisgarh.
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who is leading the three-judge bench, said one could not justify what happened in Manipur “by saying that this and this happened elsewhere”.
Acknowledging that crimes against women were taking place in West Bengal and other states as well, Justice Chandrachud added: “We are dealing with something of unprecedented magnitude of violence against women in communal and sectarian violence. It cannot be gainsaid that crimes are happening against women and in Bengal also. But here the case is different. We cannot justify what happened in Manipur by saying that this and this happened elsewhere.”
He also made a distinction with the the horrific rape of Nirbhaya, saying: “This is not a situation like Nirbhaya which was one rape committed – that was also horrific but it was isolated. Here we are dealing with systemic violence which IPC recognises as a separate offence. In such a case, is it not important that you should have a specialised team? There is a need in the State of Manipur to have a healing touch. Because the violence is continuing unabated.
The bench said the process of justice had to reach the doorstep of the two Kuki women who were paraded naked and sexually assaulted in Manipur.
The bench remarked that “merely entrusting the case” to the Central Bureau of Investigation or a Special Investigation Team would not be enough.
The court called for a broad mechanism to deal with the violence against women in strife-torn Manipur. It also asked how many FIRs had been registered in such incidents in the state since May.
Last week, the court took suo motu cognisance of the video that showed the two women being paraded naked and molested by a mob from the rival clan. The incident took place a day after ethnic clashes broke out on 3 May, and only recently appeared online since there was a gag on Internet services.
One woman’s father and brother were also shot dead when they objected to the sexual abuse.
On 20 July, the apex court had said it was “deeply disturbed” by the video, stating that women as instruments for perpetrating violence was “simply unacceptable in a constitutional democracy”.
On 27 July, the Centre informed the top court that it had transferred the probe to the CBI, reiterating that the government had “zero tolerance towards any crimes against women”.
During the hearing Monday, the apex court also asked why it took the Manipur police 14 days to register a case after the incident took place.
It asked the Manipur government: “What was the police doing? Why was an FIR in the video case transferred to the magisterial court on 24 June?”
The top court then said it did not want the case to be handled by the Manipur Police, saying it was “horrendous” that the women were handed over to the rioting crowd by the police.
The court said that time was running out and there was a great need for a “healing touch” in the state.
It then asked the Solicitor General how many Zero FIRs had been registered in Manipur. A Zero FIR prioritises the need of the victim by allowing them to file a complaint at any police station.
It also sought other details from the central and state governments – the package package for rehabilitation provided to the affected, the number of arrests made, and the legal aid provided to the victims.
The Monsoon Session of Parliament has been near paralysed since it commenced on 20 July over the opposition’s demand for a detailed discussion on Manipur and a “comprehensive statement” on the violence by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Also read: No-confidence motion in Lok Sabha on 8, 9 August, PM to speak on 10th