Manipur Violence| High Court Does Not Have Power To Direct Grant Of Reservation: SC Observes
|The Supreme Court today adjourned the Special Leave Petition filed assailing the order of the Manipur High Court which resulted in unprecedented violence between different tribs. The Supreme Court directed measures to be taken for humanitarian care. The Court noted the submissions of the Solicitor General on the adequate steps being taken to curb violence and directed that the matter be listed for May 17, 2023, and asked for an updated status report to be placed before them.
The Bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice J.B. Pardiwala recorded that "Mr Tushar Mehta, Ld. Solicitor General stated that the State of Manipur is taking appropriate steps in respect of the order of the single judge of the high court dated 27th March 2023, by moving the competing forum in that regard."
The Court told Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde who appeared for the original petitioners before the High Court he should have pointed out before the High Court that it does not have to pass the order it passed. "You never told the High Court that this power the High Court does not have. This is a presidential power. High Court has said that you shall forward a list to...", the CJI remarked during the hearing.
On the contention of the safety of people in the state, the bench noted that "As regard the steps which are intaken for restoring normalcy, the SG has placed on record the statement indicating that 52 companies of the Central Armed Police Force; 105 columns of the Assam Rifles have been deployed in Manipur; flag marches have been conducted; a senior former police officer has been appointed as advisor to the state government and another senior officer to serve as chief secretary for the Government of Manipur; meetings have been conducted and vigilance is being maintained; Helicopters and drones are being used for surveillance and relief camps are open for the displaced persons where ration and medical help are being provided."
Continuing, the bench recorded that "movement of stranded persons is being facilitated and as a consequence of the measure, no violence has been reported in the previous 2 days and the situation returning to normalcy. Curfew was relaxed for a few hours yesterday and remedial steps be adopted on a proactive basis."
The Chief Justice further stated that "In particular, we would empathize with the need for ensuring that due arrangements are made in relief camps for all basic needs, taking all necessary precautions for the rehabilitation of displaced persons and protecting Religious places." He also noted that "in the event that any person who is in relief camps, the authority shall ensure medical care at army hospitals or other suitable hospitals."
The Supreme Court also asked Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves to flag the content in his petition and only read out the relevant part. "These proceedings before Supreme Court do not become another ground for destabilization, so flag your proceedings in such matter," remarked the CJI.
The SLP filed by Dinganglung Gangmei, a BJP leader and the Chairman of the Hill Area Committee challenges the order passed by the Manipur High Court which had directed the State Government to submit a recommendation for the inclusion of the Meeteis/Meiteis in the Scheduled Tribe list to the central government.
The BJP MLA submits that the High Court had no role to play in a political situation which had to be resolved politically and that the High Court ambiguously and in all probability inadvertently gave rise to strong misgivings and worries and tensions among the tribals. It is also contended in the SLP that knowing the tenuous situation in the State, the High Court ought not to have made the order passed.
Assailing the order as illegal, the petitioner states that "there has been long-standing tension between the Meeteis/Meiteis who are dominant and advanced and economically and politically and educationally advanced, and the tribals. The tribals have been correctly included in the Presidential Order as Scheduled Tribes"
Further, challenging the contempt petition initiated by the Manipur High Court on the resolution passed by the petitioner criticizing the impugned order, Gangmei states that initiating contempt is certainly not the way forward and that the resolution of the HAC is neither contemptuous nor disrespects the High Court order and that is protected under Article 19: Freedom of speech.
The High Court had noted that “No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming from the side of the respondent State for not submitting the recommendation for the last 10 years. Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent State to submit its recommendation to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs within a reasonable time.”
Cause Title: Dinganglung Gangmei v. Shri Mutum Churamani Meetei & Ors. [Diary No. 19206-2023]