Journalism of Courage
THE SUPREME Court on Wednesday said the Manipur High Court single-judge order – asking the state government to submit a recommendation to grant Scheduled Tribe status for the Meitei community — was “absolutely wrong”. It, however, declined to stay it, noting that the matter was pending before a division bench there.
The bench, led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, also asked the Manipur government to submit a fresh status report on measures taken for security, relief and rehabilitation. While noting that law and order is a state subject, the court said it will ensure that the political executive does not “turn a blind eye” to the situation.
“We are not transferring all proceedings to Manipur. Let the state government give us a fresh status report on reopening (the SC is on summer recess from May 22 to July 2). We are not stalling any proceeding before the High Court, but independently, as a constitutional court, we want to be apprised periodically on what steps are being taken,” said the bench, which included Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala.
“We don’t want another round of highly politicised proceedings before the HC,” the CJI said, on not transferring the proceedings to the HC.
On the Manipur HC single-judge order of March 27, the CJI said: “I think we have to stay the order… The order of the HC is absolutely wrong.” He said the SC “gave” the single-judge “time to correct himself and he has not done so, and we have to take a very serious view”.
However, upon being informed that an appeal had already been filed by the All Manipur Tribal Union challenging the order, the SC declined to grant a stay. “We leave it open to the parties who are aggrieved by the order of the single-judge to make appropriate submissions before the division bench in that regard,” it said.
Earlier too, the SC had underlined that the HC does not have the power to recommend reservation, as it is a presidential power.
Clashes between the Meitei and Kuki groups were first reported on May 3, after a ‘tribal solidarity march’ to protest against the demand for inclusion of the Meitei community in the ST category, following the HC order. At least 60 people died in the clashes.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the state, told the bench that the HC had extended the one-month deadline given in the March 27 order to a year. “The HC has extended the period from one month to one year. We have filed a writ appeal also and moved the same single-judge seeking extension of one year… We had an option of challenging this order and seeking stay. Considering the position on ground… we chose not to seek stay and seek extension for one year so that the situation calms down… A stay would have some impact on the situation on the ground,” he said.
The court also asked Mehta to “please advise constitutional authority that statements should be made with a great sense of responsibility”. The bench said this after a counsel contended that authorities, including the chief minister, were making objectionable statements which could worsen the situation.
Appearing for some of the petitioners, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves sought a stay on the HC order, but the SC said he could make his submissions before the HC division bench. Gonsalves said no Kuki lawyer could appear in the HC due to security reasons, but the bench said they could do so virtually. While Gonsalves sought immediate intervention by the court, the bench directed that a copy of his application be forwarded to the state authorities.
Senior Advocate Renjith Kumar, appearing for the Manipur HC Bar Association, said: “There are illegal immigrants coming in through a porous border of 398 km from Myanmar and they are the ones creating this problem. They want to settle down in Manipur because of what is happening in Myanmar.”
The SG said Kumar’s “concern about Myanmar people entering illegally is right. That’s a concern of the government also and steps are being taken”.
“We can’t go and ascertain the correctness of allegations levelled by either side against the other. At the same time, we have serious pleadings on record which indicate a need for intervention. That intervention by its very nature cannot be of a judicial body. That intervention has to be of an administrative body, which is what we have done. We have flagged those concerns…We have directed in our order that the chief secretary and the security officer shall take these into account and take necessary steps to ensure that peace and tranquility is maintained…We are entering into the fray as to who primarily was responsible…And doing that at this stage may not be advisable in the interest of maintaining peace,” the CJI said.
“Law and order is a state subject. We, as the apex court, can ensure that the power which is entrusted to the authorities is exercised by them and they don’t turn a blind eye. How to intervene, the manner in which the intervention should be arrived at, is a matter for the political arm of the executive… We are here to ensure that there is no inaction by the state, which is what we intend to do,” he said.
Meanwhile, in a status report, the state informed the court about the steps taken to restore normalcy, details of relief camps, compensation packages, security for religious places, transportation of stranded persons, registration of FIRs, and recovery of arms.
