The Supreme Court today said that it is contemplating the constitution of a Committee of retired women judges and subject experts to record statements of victims of sexual violence in Manipur. The Court is likely to pass its order tomorrow. The CJI said during the hearing that justice should reach out to the victims in Manipur.

The Bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra will continue to hear the matter tomorrow.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the two women who were paraded naked during the violence, who had approached the Apex Court filing a petition. He submitted that the women do not want the transfer of investigation to CBI or the transfer of trial to Assam.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Centre and submitted that the Centre never said that the trial should be transferred to Assam and that it merely said that the trial be transferred out of the State.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising submitted that these are not the only two women and that there are several victims and that transfer of trial need not be thought of now, since the case is at the stage of the investigation.

The Attorney General R. Venkataramani then submitted that he will monitor the investigation and that CBI should conduct the investigation.

Chief Justice Chandrachud then said: This video came to light which led us to request you and Solicitor to come to Court and assist us. Obviously, this is not the only instance of assault on women. The affidavit of the Home Secretary says that there have been a number of instances of sexual assault on women. As we deal with this issue, we must evolve a mechanism broad enough to cover all cases. We have to ensure that in all the cases where complaints have been lodged, FIRs are registered... How many FIRs have been registered on violence against women till date?

Kapil Sibal then submitted that it is clear from the facts that the police were collaborating with those who perpetrated the violence. The affidavit suggests, statements under 161 suggest. While the victims sought protection from the crowd, they took them to the crowd. First they said that the jeep did not start. They took the women to the crowd and abandoned them, and the women were then taken to the fields. One of the women, her father and brother were killed. We still don't have their bodies. A zero FIR was registered and transferred to the appropriate police station. 4 May was the incident and zero FIR was registered on 18 May, said Sibal mentioning the sequence of events. "We need an agency in which the victims will have confidence. I don't see how the Attorney General will monitor the investigation, facts will be supplied from there. The Union today does not know how many FIRs have been lodged. The Attorney General and Solicitor General have not been told by the state", he submitted.

Tushar Mehta submitted that the government shares concerns expressed by Sibal and that the Union has no objection to the prayer in the petition by the women for the Supreme Court to monitor the investigation.

Indira Jaising submitted that the Court must have data before deciding on the investigation and that the Court has earlier appointed a High Power Commission to get facts before ordering an investigation through SIT. She submitted that women victims have to be given confidence before an investigation. Today if the CBI commences an investigation, we can't expect that everyone will tell their story, she submitted. She said that women drawn from civil society should comprise a committee that should interact with the victims. Jaising then cited three names and suggested that they speak to the women, who are more likely to speak to them rather than an investigating agency. She said that the Committee should speak to women victims from both the rival communities in the State.

"What happens to the investigation by the police, arrests have to be made right away. That process has to go on. Those who are guilty should be brought to book immediately. Should Manipur Police do it", the CJI asked.

No, said Jaising. Let them name a person before whom the statement will be recorded, she added. She said that processes should go on parallelly. The CrPC procedure has to go on. Where is the witness protection program? It entails a change of name, a change of identity, not just putting up security personnel outside the house, she submitted.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves appearing for petitioners in the connected case submitted that ultimately an SIT will have to be constituted. He suggested names of three retired officers for heading the SIT, who will not succumb to political pressure. He submitted that Court has already held that retired officers can head SIT. The Court then said that the names given are all male officers. Names of women officers were then suggested across the Bar.

Gonsalves then submitted that the SIT must look at the larger conspiracy behind the rapes in the state. He said that the rapes are not isolated and that it has happened in a coordinated fashion. We have at least 16 allegations of rape, he said. He submitted that he has no faith in CBI since the "central government closed its eyes to what is happening in Manipur". "People in Manipur do not distinguish between the Central government and the State", he submitted.

Advocate Vrinda Grover submitted that there are many cases of violence against women and gave details of a case. She said that her clients have met some victims. She said that there are zero FIRs in some cases but nothing has happened thereafter. She said that women will not come forward if the government is not taking action. When she said that Kuki women are being targeted and that they are a minority. The Attorney General and the SG objected to her mentioning the names of communities. Grover submitted that in relation to the case related to the viral video, the provision in the IPC relating to gang rape was not invoked in FIR despite mentioning that there was a gang rape. She also said that the SC ST Atrocities Act has not been invoked in most cases. She also submitted that an SIT constituted by the Apex Court must investigate the cases.

When Gorver submitted about a shortage of ration in the state, the Attorney General and the SG objected by saying that there is no pleading and that there is no such case on board. The Attorney General submitted that such submissions are being made without handing over any material based on which submission is being made and that an attempt is being made to paint a state in black. The CJI then responded that the petitioners are merely pointing out their grievances and that the Court is not accepting them as truth.

Advocate Nizam Pasha submitted that 14 instances of violence against women are paced before the Court and that 4 of them are cases where police have aided the accused. He submitted that the SIT should investigate the police officers who have aided the rioters either by commission or omission. He submitted that victims should be given compensation at the stage of recording 164 CrPC statements. He submitted that the FIRs mentioned in his petition be named and transferred to the SIT for investigation.

Advocate Bansuri Swaraj appearing in an intervention application submitted that "after this horrific incident came to light, in Manipur in May, an identical incident took place both in Bangal and in Chhattisgarh". She was interrupted by the CJI who said, "We will hear you on that later. We are dealing with Manipur right now". Bansuri continued, "I understand My Lord, I just have a very humble prayer". "We will hear you later on that", the CJI persisted.

"Whatever mechanism my lords are setting up, whether it is transferring the investigation to CBI, or my lords are monitoring the investigation, the daughters of India, pan India need to be protected. I am grateful to my lords for taking cognizance of what happened in Manipur. My lord may kindly just permit me one minute", she said. "Yes, certainly'', the CJI responded.

"My lord, as I said, the horrific video came to light in May 2023. In July, a mob of 40 to 50 men disrobed a panchayat poll candidate, molested her and paraded her nude in the village in the district of Howrah in West Bengal. Another candidate in post-poll violence was also paraded nude. Identical my lord with what happened in Manipur. No FIR has been registered till date", she submitted.

"Ms. Swaraj the only distinction is this. Undoubtedly, there are crimes which are taking place against women all over the country. That's a part of our social reality. We are dealing with something which is of unprecedented magnitude, viz. in terms of perpetration of violence against women in a situation of communal or sectarian strife of the nature that is taking place in Manipur. There is no gainsaying the fact that there are crimes which are taking place against women, possibly as you say in West Bengal as well. The only answer is this, you cannot excuse what is taking place in one part of the Country like Manipur on the ground that this is now (inaudible) and there are several other crimes against women as well. Question is how do we deal with Manipur? If you have something to assist the Court on that or something in terms of laying down a framework for investigation, please tell us that", the CJI responded.

Bansuri responded by saying, "My lord in the case of West Bengal it is equally grave because there the violence against women is actually being used to punish the electorate. Ms. Indira Jaising was asking for the number of FIRs, she said 5995 FIRs in Manipur. My lord, 9304 FIRs in West Bengal. Only 3% of people are incarcerated. 97% of the perpetrator are roaming free. My lord my humble request, the conscience of civil society has definitely woken up here. What is happening in Manipur cannot be condoned. Bone-chilling facts are coming to light after what happened in Manipur. Similar things are happening in Rajasthan, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh and Kerala. My lords may kindly protect all daughters of India and not limit that mechanism only to Manipur".

The Attorney General then submitted that all of us are engaged in a complex engagement. He submitted that there is a landmine of issues that landed us in the situation. Manipur is a Columbia, he said he read somewhere. He said that he is not saying that the Court cannot order an SIT. He said that to say that the State will not have any role at all in the investigation is an extreme view. He said that he wants time to gather information.

The CJI then asked when the FIR was registered in the cases relating to the viral video. He Attorney General said that he has all the information, but wants to put it in a coherent way.

The SG then said, It is true that the FIR was registered on the 18th of May. The FIR registered as zero FIR did not give details. He said that around 20 FIRs are registered in the Police station and that around six thousand in the state.

"What was the police doing for 18 days to register an FIR?", the CJI asked. The SG said that the incident was learned about on the 18th is what he has been told. The movement the video surfaced, within 24 hours, 7 people are arrested, the SG said.

The CJI then asked for bifurcation of the around 6 thousand FIRs based on cases involving violence against women, burning houses etc. The SG said that the bifurcation will be ready within 48 hours.

You say that the CBI will investigate this case, Is this the only stand-alone incident involving violence against women? If there are one thousand FIRs about violence against women, will the CBI investigate all of them, the CJI asked.

The CJI continued: If the facts reported in the media are true, the police were involved in aiding the offenders. You yourself do not want the state police to investigate. There is a need for a healing touch to restore faith in the administration. He said that to send a Court appointed team will send the right message. The CJI said that he wants to know what package is being extended by the Centre to Manipur. The CJI said that it is important that the statement of the victim should be recorded by the right persons.

The CJI also asked the Centre to respond to the names for SIT suggested by the petitioners. The CJI then said that it will constitute a committee of women judges and subject experts. The CJI also said that the Judges on the committee may also be permitted to co-opt the subject experts. He said that the extent of intervention by the Court will depend on what the government has done so far.

The CJI said that information about the bifurcation of FIRs and the number of arrests, availability of legal aid to victims etc. should be furnished tomorrow.

Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta who appeared for a Meitei organisation was told by the CJI that violence by both communities will be dealt with even-handedly. Gupta submitted that the reason for violence will have to be considered and that violence from both sides is continuing.

The Court then said that it will continue to hear the matter tomorrow at 2 pm.

On July 20, 2023, the Chief Justice-led Bench had taken suo motu cognizance of the incident of the two women being paraded naked and sexually assaulted, captured in a viral video shared across media platforms. The Court had remarked that "It is time that the Government really steps in and takes action because this is simply unacceptable" and had directed both the Union Government and the State Government to take immediate steps and to apprise the Court of what action has been taken. The Centre then filed an affidavit stating that the investigation be transferred to the CBI and that the trial of the case be transferred out of Manipur, to be completed within a time frame. It was thereafter that the two women approached the Supreme Court filing independent proceeding.

Similarly, on the issue of ethnic violence prevalent in the State of Manipur, the Court had on July 11, considered the suggestions made by different parties to remedy the issues faced in the state and had directed that an action taken report be filed by the State within a week. The Court said that "It will review the action taken, after two weeks and is only highlighting some suggestions, but the Government can take action on all issues."

The Court is seized of a batch of pleas on the Manipur situation, including one by a ruling BJP MLA challenging the high court order on Scheduled Tribe status to the Meitei community, and a PIL by the tribal NGO for an SIT probe into the violence that has rocked the northeastern state

Last week, the Tamil Nadu government had registered an FIR and arrested a political commentator who made remarks against Chief Justice DY Chandrachud in the context of the Apex Court's handling of the Manipur violence.

Cause Title: Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei And Ors.& Connected Matters [Diary No. 19206-2023]

Chief Justice DY ChandrachudJustice Manoj MisraJustice JB PardiwalaManipur Violence

Ramey Krishan Rana