The Supreme Court, on Monday, July 31, expressed shock that the facts about the Manipur violence which are in the public domain are not in the possession of the government, including the details of cases taken up by the police. The court was hearing a petition filed by the two tribal women who were paraded naked and sexually assaulted in Manipur seeking not to transfer the case to CBI or outside the state, along with a batch of pleas related to inter-ethnic clashes in the north-eastern state. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra asked the government to provide the details of the First Information Reports (FIRs) filed in Manipur and the breakup of the cases, along with the action taken in them. The court also said that attention cannot be deflected away from Manipur by pointing out that crimes against women were happening in other states too.
The court deferred hearing on an intervening application seeking action on a similar incident that occurred in Bengal, filed by advocate Bansuri Swaraj. "Undoubtedly there are crimes which are taking place against women across the country, that is our social reality. But here, we are dealing with something which is of unprecedented magnitude, namely crimes and perpetration of violence against women in a situation of communal and sectarian strife. There is no gain saying 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,” the CJI said.
As advocate Swaraj replied saying, “All pan India daughters have to be protected. There have been instances in Bikaner, in West Bengal... it's not just Manipur,” the CJI asked, "Are you saying protect all daughters of India or don't protect anyone?".
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the sexual assault survivors, opposed the transfer of the probe to CBI and demanded for the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SITs) to probe gender violence cases. He also alleged that the Manipur Police collaborated with the mob to allow perpetration of sexual violence on them. “The police took them towards the crowd. First, they stated that there was no ignition and then they abandoned them with the crowd. And they did what they did,” he said and added that there should be an independent agency appointed to monitor the situation in Manipur and the investigation of sexual assaults against women.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the Union government would have no objection if the investigation is monitored by the apex court. “Let your lordships monitor the investigation,” he said. Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the intervenors, requested the court for formation of a High Powered Committee to make a ground report in relation to the sexual violence cases. “An atmosphere is needed for the women to tell their stories. Let the report come back (to the court),” she added.
Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves urged for the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), headed by a retired official. “The SIT should look into not only immediate perpetrators but also the larger conspiracy about rapes in Manipur. They're happening in a collective and coordinated fashion,” he said. He further added that there was not much faith in the CBI, as the Union government, which controls the agency, had “closed its eyes on Manipur”. “The people in Manipur, the victims, could not distinguish between the State government and Union government, they acted in unison. Kindly consider not having CBI at all,” he said.
Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for NGO Women in Governance, suggested appointment of local commissioners by the court to take effective steps in relation to the relief camps. Pointing out that there may be sexual violence against women from both communities, she said that there was a targeted attack against the Kuki women, which is a minority community. While Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta intervened and said, “Please don't mention communities like this. Let's not fan communal tension,” Grover responded by saying that it was essential to highlight this targeted violence. “The offence is also rape committed during communal strife. We cannot turn a blind eye towards it,” she said and added that the relevant sections of the crime are not added to the FIRs properly.
Pointing out that the incident of sexual assault took place on May 4, the bench asked when the FIR was registered. In response, Attorney General R Venkataramani requested the court to adjourn the hearing tomorrow to present the series of incidents in a more cogent manner.
However, when the CJI asked if the FIR was registered on May 18, SG Mehta responded in the affirmative and said that it was registered as a zero FIR, and that there were nearly 6,000 similar FIRs in the state. The bench questioned why it took 14 days for the police to register an FIR, and asked what action has been taken in the other cases.
“You say there are 6,000 FIRs. How many of them involve crime against women? How many involve offences like murder, arson etc? What is the bifurcation between these 6,000 FIRs? Out of these, how many were recorded as zero FIRs? We want to know how many zero FIRs, what was the action taken, are there any 156 proceedings, to what extent has legal aid been provided? Is this the only standalone incident of violence on women? Or how many such FIRs are there? Suppose there are 1000 such cases, then is the CBI in position to conduct investigation in all these incidents? Because they're all connected,” CJI fired questions to SG Mehta, who responded by saying that at least one woman officer would report back on the matter and sought that the case should be moved out of the state of Manipur.
“The facts pointed out, they're facts in the media, in public knowledge. I'm surprised that the state is not in possession of these facts. These are being widely reported across national media. There are statements by victims that they were handed over by police. This is not a situation like Nirbhaya which was one rape committed - that was also horrific but it was isolated. Here we're dealing with systemic violence which IPC recognises as a separate offence,” the CJI said.
The court indicated that it may constitute a committee comprising retired judges and subject experts to record statements of victims in the violence-hit state. “On the committee there are two ways: we constitute a committee ourselves, partly of women judges and domain experts. Women or men wouldn't matter but there should be women because they will be interacting with the victims. This is not in terms of just trying to figure out what has happened but we also need to rebuild lives. The extent of our intervention would also depend on what the government has done so far. If we're satisfied with what the government has done, we may not even intervene,” the court said and sought details of cases registered and action taken. “Our idea is ultimately that we restore the faith of the community - in the constitutional process. That's the message we need to send,” the bench said, and adjourned the case to 2 pm on Tuesday, August 1.
The Union government had earlier informed the top court that investigation in the incident has been transferred to CBI and requested it to order transfer of the entire case including trial to any state outside the State of Manipur. On July 20, the Supreme Court took suo moto cognisance of the disturbing viral videos and asked the Centre and the state government to apprise it about the steps taken by July 28. “Using women as instruments for perpetrating violence is simply unacceptable in a constitutional democracy,” a bench headed by the CJI said.
“The Central government with the consent of the state government has taken a decision to entrust the investigation to an independent agency i.e. CBI,” informed the affidavit filed by the Union Home Secretary, Ajay Kumar Bhalla to the court.
(With IANS inputs)