New Delhi: An affidavit the Manipur government filed in the Supreme Court came under scrutiny for its remarks directed at counsels arguing for the Meitei Christian Churches Council, Manipur (MCCCM).
The top court had heard the MCCCM’s petition on Friday (September 1), which raised the matter of the destruction of as many as 642 places of worship in Manipur.
Appearing for the MCCCM, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi objected on Wednesday (September 6) to a paragraph in the affidavit filed by Manipur’s chief secretary.
The counsel said that instead of addressing the issue at hand, the affidavit had sought to attribute motives and that too on grounds which were not legally tenable.
He objected to the affidavit questioning the petitioner for only taking up the cause of destruction of churches.
Ahmadi said, “What disturbs me today is this affidavit. It is really disturbing. What is sought to be done is rather than address the issue, motives are sought to be attributed on grounds that are alien on any legal principle,” LiveLaw reported.
He continued: “Let me assume for the sake of an argument that I highlight a particular issue. I am not in the way of restoring all places of worship to the original stand.”
“But is this, on a legal basis, a legally tenable stand on behalf of the state? To say that I highlight the case in respect of certain places of worship and takeover of certain places of worship – can that be a ground to say that you only highlighted the cause of churches?”
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for Manipur, was quoted by LiveLaw as saying that “you cannot be selective”.
Ahmadi pressed on, asking the top officer of the court to let him complete his point.
Watch: ‘The Meitei Are My Brothers, I’ve Forgiven The Black Sheep Amongst Them For Their Terrible Deeds’
“I submit that all places of worship should be restored, wherever it is happening. But so far as I am concerned, I highlight a particular clause. I am for the church institution. To allege this, this is deeply disturbing also to me,” he said according to LiveLaw.
He pointed out that the state government’s affidavit had made statements against senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, who appeared for the all-women judges’ committee constituted by the Supreme Court to oversee cases related to the state’s ethnic violence.
“To make these allegations even against the counsel of the commission, in my submission, is deeply disturbing,” Ahmadi said according to LiveLaw.
He appealed to the bench of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra for protection, and went as far as to say, “The tenor of this is disturbing. It says it is not adversarial but it is actually adversarial.”
Bar and Bench reported that Arora also took strong objection to being ‘attacked’ by the state of Manipur in its affidavit filed before the apex court. She said she intended to recuse from the matter, citing ‘direct attacks’ against her.
The chief justice told the solicitor general, “In all future reports, let’s keep counsel out of it. They are doing this as their duty to the court.”
The MCCCM has complained that the state and the Centre did not do anything to prevent the destruction of churches belonging to the Meitei Christians in Manipur during the communal clashes. Its petition has called for action to be taken right away to stop the further desecration of church properties and to preserve them.
“These church properties and its grounds are being used for other purposes. In most cases, the title documents etc. were looted or torched along with the church properties, and the petitioners no longer have any documentary evidence in their possession,” it said.
“If the conversion of church properties for use of other communities is not stopped immediately, the petitioners may not be in a position to retrieve them at all,” it added.
The bench was hearing a batch of pleas related to the recent outbreak of violence in Manipur. The Modi government had ordered a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the viral video of three women being disrobed and paraded, after the court had taken it up suo motu.