Manipur High Court

Manipur: Unrest Continues; HC Modifies Controversial Order on Inclusion of Meiteis in ST List

A single-judge bench withdrew the order – which is widely seen as one of the triggers of the state’s unrest – highlighting that a constitution bench of the Supreme Court led by the Chief Justice of India had taken strong exception to it.

New Delhi: Unrest, kidnappings and demonstrations have continued to pockmark Manipur.

On February 20, the All Manipur Students’ Union (AMSU) president Kongbrailatpam Haridev Sharma, along with a student leader, were kidnapped at gunpoint by unidentified men near the gate of the Manipur University.

Women’s organisations and student bodies from the Meitei community appealed for their immediate release.

While the other student leader was released later that day in a village in the Imphal West district, Haridev Sharma was kept in custody by the kidnappers for 24 hours before he was released in Imphal on February 22.

According to some groups demanding Haridev’s release, the abductors belonged to the Kh. Pambei faction of the armed group United National Liberation Front (UNLF-P), though the outfit has not claimed any responsibility for this.

The UNLF-P is currently in peace talks with the Union government.

The kidnapping incident happened when both student leaders were heading home after attending a discussion on the ongoing Manipur issue at the university, where they spoke about how the student community was being affected by it.

Lawyers protest inside court complex to protest firing of tear gas

A day after the incident, the capital city witnessed state police and the Rapid Action Force (RAF) resorting to firing tear gas within a court complex in Imphal to control an angry protest carried out by a group of women.

On February 21, the police had brought to the Cheirap court six persons accused of looting arms recently from the India Reserve Battalion (IRB) headquarters in the Imphal East district.

All the men belong to the Meitei community.

Media reports from Imphal said a scuffle broke out between the women and the security personnel after the lower court remanded all the accused to 15-day judicial custody. The women demanded their immediate release.

Unable to control the situation, the state police brought in the RAF.

Since tear gas was used to disperse the crowd, a day later, lawyers from the court held a sit-in protest within the court premises to condemn the police action on the women and demanded that the state institute a judicial inquiry into it.

Manipur high court modifies controversial March 2023 order

At the same time, on February 21, the Manipur high court, in a significant development, modified its 2023 order which had directed the N. Biren Singh government to consider including the Meitei community into the Scheduled Tribe (ST) list.

The incident is widely seen as one of the triggers of the unrest that Manipur has been witnessing since May last year.

A single-judge bench led by Justice Golmei Gaiphulshillu, while hearing a review petition on the earlier order passed by acting Chief Justice M.V. Muralidharan, withdrew the order, highlighting the point that a constitution bench of the Supreme Court led by the Chief Justice of India had recently taken strong exception to it.

The Manipur high court heard the case this past February 21 since the Supreme Court didn’t stay the March 27 order of Justice Muralidharan, as an appeal before the division bench of the high court had already been filed by groups including the original petitioner, the Meitei Tribal Union.

Displaced persons say rations stopped; ITLF demands officials leave Churachandpur

Meanwhile, in Kuki-dominated Churachandpur, people staying in the 115 relief camps across the district due to the ongoing violence have begun an indefinite strike demanding that their rations be continued by the Union government.

The refugees have told local media that their weekly ration supply has stopped ‘without any reason’.

The rations, which include both food and non-food items, are distributed to relief camps through the deputy commissioner’s office every Monday of the week.

This past Monday (February 19), the rations didn’t arrive.

On February 16, a mob had burnt the Churachandpur deputy commissioner (DC)’s office and residence, leaving the town in complete disarray.

The violence was in protest of the killing of two persons during another mob attack at the district police superintendent (SP)’s office a day earlier (a few hours before midnight).

The mob attack at the SP’s office was triggered by a suspension order to a police constable belonging to the Kuki tribe after a video clip went viral allegedly showing him with armed groups.

According to a Nagaland Post report quoting a police officer, “Several important documents and government records have been destroyed during the violence” at the DC’s office.

The Indigenous Tribal Leaders Forum (ITLF), an influential umbrella body of tribal groups in Manipur, has demanded that the suspension of the police officer be revoked immediately and that the SP, Shivanand Surve, and the DC, S. Dharun Kumar, should leave the district at once.

The ITLF also demanded they be preferably replaced by people from the Kuki-Zo community.

Media reports have said the ITLF has stated that if its demands are not met soon, there would be a total shutdown of all government offices in the district.

Manipur Govt Allocates Rs 5-Crore as Sexual Violence Compensation, No Info on How Many to Receive It

The compensation for victims who have lost their lives or those who have been gangraped ranges from Rs 5 lakh-10 lakh, the state government’s affidavit said.

New Delhi: The Manipur government on Monday (November 20) informed the Supreme Court that is had allocated Rs 5 crore in a dedicated bank account to disburse compensation to women who faced sexual assault and other crimes in Manipur after the state was engulfed in violence on May 3.

The affidavit does not specify the number of women who will be compensated through these funds, nor does it say how many have been compensated so far.

The compensation for victims who have lost their lives or those who have been gangraped ranges from Rs 5 lakh-10 lakh. For other crimes, including rape, sexual assault, and injuries such as loss of limbs or body parts, compensation amounts vary from Rs 1 lakh-Rs 9 lakh, the Hindu reported.

However, there is no clarity so far on the criterion adopted by the government officials in deciding compensation within these ranges on a case-to-case basis.

Also read: In Manipur, Violence Against Women, Impunity, and Apathy Show a Familiar Pattern of Events

Identification of religious buildings

The Supreme Court in September had asked the Manipur government to “immediately identify all religious buildings in the State which would include churches, Hindu temples, Sanamahi temples, mosques and any building of any other religion, whether existing at present or vandalised/damaged/burnt in the violence” and asked that they be protected from encroachment and destruction.

In the government’s October 16 response, it had indicated the steps taken in this regard in all the 16 districts. “It was further submitted that inspection of religious sites could not be completed in Noney and Senapati districts due to the prevailing circumstances.”

However, in its latest response, the government said that the identification exercise had been completed in the said districts and no vandalism was reported in Noney and Senapati.

In August, the state had informed the apex court that “a total of 386 religious institutions of both the communities have suffered damage subject to further assessment which is on-going,” the Hindu reported.

Over 200 lives have been lost and more than 75,000 persons have been internally displaced in the violence that began nearly six months ago and continues to flare up sporadically.

Manipur HC Allows Tribal Bodies to Appeal Against Controversial Order on ST Status for Meiteis

The order proved to be an immediate trigger plunging the state into a nearly five-month-long ethnic violence, starting on May 3. The court on March 27 directed the state government to recommend ST status for Meiteis.

New Delhi: The Manipur high court has allowed tribal bodies in the state to appeal against the controversial March 27 order that granted Scheduled Tribe (ST) status to Meiteis.

The order proved to be an immediate trigger plunging the state into a nearly five-month-long ethnic violence, starting on May 3. The court had, in its order, directed the state government to recommend ST status for Meiteis.

On October 19, a division Bench of Justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh and Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma allowed tribal bodies to register their appeal, rejecting the pleas of the Manipur government and Meitei Tribes Union opposing the appeal. With the court now taking note of the grievances and arguments advanced by the tribal bodies, their appeal would be taken up for hearing in the coming days.

The controversial order was passed by previous Acting Chief Justice M.V. Muralidharan. With the Union government now notifying Justice Muralidharan’s transfer to Calcutta high court, Manipur’s new Chief Justice, Justice Siddharth Mridul, is expected to take up the appeal for the hearing.

After the March 27 order became public, tribal bodies launched protests across the state, which soon turned into a never-ending ethnic conflict with a clear division between Meiteis on the one hand and Kukis on the other. The five-month-long violence has so far claimed 180 people and displaced lakhs of people.

After the violence began on May 3, various tribal bodies, led by the All Manipur Tribal Union, moved the Manipur high court seeking leave to file a third-party appeal against the controversial order as an aggrieved party.

Finally, on October 17, the court acceded to their appeal. “Taking into consideration the nature of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties which needs to be examined and decided on the basis of the materials available in the connected writ appeal and writ petition and taking into consideration the nature of the grievances raised by the applicants, we are inclined to grant leave sought by the applicants in the present application,” the court said, according to The Hindu.

Appearing for tribal bodies, advocate Colin Gonsalves had faulted the controversial order, stating that Meiteis’ claim to the ST status does not have merit and that the community has nowhere claimed to be backward, which is a prerequisite for claiming ST status. In their petition, the tribal bodies had also said that granting Meiteis’s ST status would mean snatching away the rights and benefits of existing STs.

Gonsalves had brought to the notice of the court that tribal bodies had not been given an opportunity to present their views before passing the March 27 order. Not allowing them to appeal the order would affect their rights as an aggrieved party, he said.

While the Union government had raised no objections to allowing tribal bodies to appeal the order, the Biren Singh government, however, opposed the appeal against the order. The Singh government, like the Meitei Tribes Union, had said tribal unions cannot be considered as an “aggrieved party” in the instant case.

Besides this, Meitei Tribes Union’s review petition is also pending before the high court, where tribal bodies have also been made parties.

SC to Hear Manipur Govt’s Challenge of HC Order Directing Partial Restoration of Internet

Internet was first cut off in the state – which has seen brutal ethnic violence – over two months ago, on May 3.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court will hear tomorrow a plea challenging the Manipur high court’s order asking for internet in the state to be restored in limited capacity.

Internet was first cut off in the state – which has seen brutal ethnic violence – on May 3. Multiple government orders have since then called for its continuation.

On June 16, the Manipur high court had ordered the state government to allow restricted internet access in certain areas. This order was made public on June 20.

Then, on July 7, the high court once again ordered the Manipur government to lift the ban on Internet Lease Line (ILL) and Fibre To The Home (FTTH) connections in the state after ensuring that all the stakeholders have complied with the safeguards suggested by an Expert Committee, LiveLaw reported.

Justices Ahanthem Bimol Singh and Guneshwar Sharma had issued the order in response to a bunch of petitions asking for partial restoration of the internet.

However, today, July 10, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta pleaded with the Supreme Court to hear the government’s challenge to the order.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha initially agreed to hear the matter today. The apex court was to also hear other petitions on the Manipur violence. However, it has now adjourned the matter to July 11.

Earlier, Supreme Court refused to hear new petitions challenging facets of Manipur’s two-month-long internet ban, citing that the Manipur high court was already hearing it.

SC Collegium Proposes Names of New CJIs for Seven High Courts

The new appointments will fill existing and future vacancies in the high courts of Kerala, Orissa, Manipur, Andhra Pradesh, Bombay, Telangana, and Gujarat.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Collegium, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, has recommended to the government the names of judges for the appointment of new chief justices to seven major high courts across the country.

The new appointments will fill existing and future vacancies in the high courts of Kerala, Orissa, Manipur, Andhra Pradesh, Bombay, Telangana, and Gujarat.

In its recommendation, the Supreme College Collegium has focussed on the traditional criteria of seniority, regional representation, and the need for more women judges at the top level in the judiciary, The Hindu reported.

Gujarat high court judge Justice Ashish J. Desai’s name has been recommended as the new Chief Justice of the Kerala high court. Justice Desai is the senior most puisne judge of the Gujarat high court and has been handling the responsibilities of Chief Justice of the high court after the retirement of Justice Sonia G. Gokani. The Collegium also noted that Gujarat does not have representation among the chief justices of high courts.

On the other hand, the Collegium suggested that the current CJI of the Kerala high court, Justice S. Venkatanarayana Bhatti, be elevated as a Supreme Court judge.

Following the retirement of the current Chief Justice of Orissa high court, Justice S. Muralidhar, in August 2023, the judges’ panel suggested that Justice Subhasis Talapatra be appointed in his place. Justice Talapatra is the senior most puisne judge of the Tripura high court. The Collegium also noted that Tripura high court has no representation among the Chief Justices of high courts since its inception in 2013.

The name of Delhi high court’s Justice Siddharth Mridul has been recommended to be appointed as the Manipur Chief Justice. The Manipur high court is currently under Acting Chief Justice M. V. Muralidharan. It was Justice Muralidharan’s order of March 27 which is considered the trigger for the violence between Meitei and Kukis in the state.

In fact, Justice Mridul’s recommendation as Manipur high court chief justice comes in place of a still pending February 9, 2023 Collegium recommendation which suggested Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur of the Bombay high court be elevated as the top judge of the Manipur high court.

Now, the Collegium has withdrawn his transfer to Manipur high court and instead proposed he be elevated as the Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh. The position in the Andhra Pradesh high court fell vacant on May 19, after Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra was elevated to the Supreme Court.

The judges’ panel also observed that Justice Thakur was the senior-most judge of his parent High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, which would get representation among the Chief Justices of the high courts.

The issue of the appointment of judges has, for some time, led to sharp exchanges between the apex court and the Union government. The apex court has even expressed “concern” over Centre withholding approval for appointments of some judges recommended by the Collegium while clearing others.

Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya’s name has been recommended for the appointment of Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. The position fell vacant after Justice Ramesh D. Dhanuka’s retirement. Justice Upadhyaya is a senior puisne judge of the Allahabad high court, which is the largest high court in the country.

Allahabad’s senior-most puisne judge Justice Sunita Agarwal’s name has been suggested for the position of Gujarat Chief Justice. If her appointment takes place, Justice Agarwal would be “the only woman Chief Justice of a High Court as presently there is no woman among the Chief Justices of the High Courts”.

The name of Justice Alok Aradhe of the Madhya Pradesh high court has been recommended for appointment as the Telangana Chief Justice. The incumbent Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s name has been recommended for elevation as a Supreme Court judge.

Manipur: HC Asks Govt to Restore Internet Service at Designated Areas, SC Refuses Urgent Listing

Meanwhile, the Manipur high court has admitted a review petition seeking a modification of its controversial March 27 order that directed the state government to recommend the inclusion of the Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribes list.

New Delhi: The Manipur high court’s order to the state government to allow restricted internet access in certain areas, originally delivered on Friday, June 16, was made public today, June 20.

Justices Ahanthem Bimol Singh and A. Guneshwar Sharma gave the directions after hearing several public interest litigations urging for internet to be restored in the state, a report on India Today NE states.

The state government had originally extended the internet ban till today. It is not clear yet as to whether it will be further extended.

The bench said that internet access is necessary for “urgent and vital tasks,” particularly in the continuing student admissions process.

“Taking into consideration the hardship faced by the public specially with regard to the ongoing admission process of the students in the State and to enable the public for carrying out their urgent and essential services, the State authorities are directed to provide limited internet service to the public in some designated places under the controlled of the State authorities,” the June 16 order stated, according to Bar and Bench.

On June 9, the Supreme Court had turned down the urgent listing of a petition urging the restoration of internet in the state, where it has been shut since early May.

SC turns down urgent listing by tribal forum

A Supreme Court vacation bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice M.M. Sundresh has refused to urgently list an interlocutory application filed by the Manipur Tribal Forum seeking the deployment of Army personnel to help curb the violence, LiveLaw has reported.

The matter will now be heard on July 3.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves had pushed for an urgent listing, nothing that in spite of assurance by security agencies, 70 tribal people have allegedly been killed. Gonsalves noted that the apex court was the last hope for tribals.

The application urged for armymen to be deployed to the districts of Churachanpur, Chandel, Kangpokpi, Impal East, and Imphal west and for a special investigation team to be established to look into the violence and who caused it.

It also urged for first information reports to be filed against Kourounganba Khuman of the Arambai Tenggol group and M. Pramot Singh, president of the Meitei Leepun group.

HC seeks govts’ response on Meitei-ST order review petition

“The first respondent shall consider the case of the petitioners for inclusion of the Meetei/Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribe list, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order…,” the March 27 order had said.

The Meitei Tribes Union (MTU), opposed to the previous order, moved the high court. “It is this part of the order that we have sought a modification of. There is a Supreme Court judgment that says inclusion or exclusion of any community is the prerogative of the Parliament and the President. So this direction does not comply with that,” MTU advocate Ajoy Pebam told PTI.

The court issued notices to the Union and state governments, seeking their response to a petition filed by MTU. The review petition will be heard on July 5.

The ethnic violence in the state is believed to have been triggered by this order and the opposition to it.

Mob storms police station

The arrest by security forces of four persons who were travelling in a Tata Safari with a 51mm mortar led to mob outrage in Thoubal district on June 19. A huge crowd tried to storm Lilong police station to protest against the arrest by the Assam Rifles, India Today NE reported separately.

The four, Haorongbam Ranjit, Ngangom Shanta Meitei, Abujam Naoba and Mutum Robindra, are being housed at the Lilong police station.

Meiteis Have Not Been ‘Denied’ ST Status. Exclusion Was Their Own Choice.

When the first Backward Classes Commission requested a list of tribes to be included in the Scheduled Tribes (modification) list from each state and union territory, Meities did not include themselves.

The ongoing ethnic riots in Manipur escalated on May 3, 2023 – the same day as the tribal ‘Solidarity March’ was organised in all district headquarters in the hill areas against the Manipur high court’s order directing the state government to submit a recommendation to the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs on the question of including Meiteis in the Scheduled Tribes (ST) list.

The scale of violence selectively unleashed on the Kuki-Zomi tribes suggests the riots may have been pre-planned. The march was organised by the All Tribal Students’ Union, Manipur (ATSUM) which includes the Nagas as well – but the targets have only been people from Kuki-Zomi tribes.

One also suspects that the only reason behind the violence might not be the opposition to the ST status for Meiteis. It may be one of the factors, but not the main factor, as the issue of land has also been emphasized by the Meitei.

The Meitei claimed that they were left out of the President’s Constitution (STs) Order, 1950. But the question is about the modification list in 1956 which was done based on the report of the Backward Classes Commission (BCC) chaired by KaKa Kalelkar.

The Meitei were not denied or left out from the STs List as they claim – they chose not to be included. When the first BCC requested a list of tribes to be included in the Scheduled Tribes (modification) list from each state and union territory, Meities did not include themselves.

At the same time, they cannot pretend that they were not aware of this – as certain sections of the Meitei were enlisted as Scheduled Castes (SCs) on the commission’s recommendation.

Now, after more than six decades they demand to be considered as backward and seek to be at the same level as the people whom they contemptuously called ‘Hao’ (tribal). The abusive words Hao thu, which they used quite often in the recent riots against the Kuki-Zomi tribes highlight a deep-rooted dichotomy between the Meitei and the tribals. This term is also used for all the hill tribes, including Nagas. And the Meitei, who consider it highly derogatory, hurl it at the tribals.

Regarding the inclusion of tribes in the ST list, it is basically a policy for promoting social justice by adopting positive discrimination and affirmative action for the unrepresented within the society.

Then, why is it that the dominant community of a state like the Meitei in Manipur demands ST status? Is it for reservation benefits, which sections of the community already avail as Other Backward Classes (OBC), economically weaker sections (EWS) and Scheduled Castes? It is not, as Meitei MLA Nishikant Sapam said “the job is another thing the main thing is land” in his interview with Karan Thapar for The Wire. The hill tribes are protesting against the Meitei demand for ST status as they are apprehensive of an ulterior motive. The issue became more complicated when the Manipur high court ordered the Manipur government to consider the Meitei community’s inclusion in the ST list.

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud called the high court’s direction as “completely factually wrong,” as the procedure for inclusion in the ST list is very clear in the constitution.

Even though the constitution does not provide any criteria for the inclusion of a community or a tribe in the ST list, Article 365(25) states, “Scheduled tribes means such tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within such tribes or tribal communities as are deemed under Article 342 to be Scheduled Tribes for the purposes of this Constitution.”

Article 342 of the constitution empowers the president to specify any tribe as ST by public notification in any state or union territory, in consultation with the governor.

The first BCC adopted a single criterion for scheduled castes i.e., untouchability. It also stated the criteria for a tribe or group to be identified as ST as those who “live apart in the hills, and even where they live in plains, they lead a separate excluded existence and are not fully assimilated in the main body of the people. Scheduled tribes may belong to any religion. They are listed as scheduled tribes because of the kind of life led by them.”

Also read: ‘Completely Factually Wrong’: SC Slams Manipur HC Order on Meiteis and ST List

In fact, the Meiteis’ exclusion from the ST list is by their own choice, as the Kalelkar commission left it entirely up to the state. The method the BCC adopted was the distribution of a questionnaire to all the states and union territories. It even included such questions like: “Do you think that the lists of SCs and STs issued under the president’s order need any revisions? If so, what castes or communities do you suggest for inclusion or exclusion from the above mentioned two lists (SCs & STs list)? Please state reasons…Have your state government recommended the inclusion in or exclusion from the existing lists of any tribe, caste, or community?”.

These two questions, besides many others, show that the Meitei did not consider being at the same level as the hill tribes, the untouchables, and those who follow their traditional religion, the Sanamahi. Of course, by using ‘untouchability’ as a criterion, certain sections of the Meitei community were included in the SC list, as they were untouchable in relation to the dwija (twice-born) Meitei.

Demanding ST status for the dwija is not in alignment with the criteria mentioned above, if the demand is for those who “reconvert” to Sanamahi, it should be for an extension of the SC status towards their community. The followers of this faith were condemned as mangba (unclean), and they were included in the SC list.

In such sensitive matters, any judicial intervention is setting precedent for future litigation. So it is imperative to avoid taking an undignified stance that could put the judiciary’s credibility at stake.

Lam Khan Piang teaches sociology at the University of Hyderabad

Manipur Violence: Are We Losing Sight of What’s Really Important?

The respondents in the Supreme Court are avoiding the central issue of violence committed on hill tribes of the state and diverting attention into a discussion on their origins and cultivation of poppy.

New Delhi: The recent Supreme Court hearing on May 17 in a slew of petitions seeking the top court’s intervention in the Manipur violence and issues related to the demand for ST status by a section of Meiteis echoes a lot of concerns of Manipur’s tribal people. Concern because the respondents are missing the central issue of violence committed on hill tribes of the state and diverting it into a discussion on their origins and cultivation of poppy.

The legal fight

The order by Justice M.V. Muralidaran of the Manipur high court on March 27 in the PIL Mutum Churamnai Meetei v. The State of Manipur and Others, directing the state government to submit recommendations within four weeks to include the Meitei community under the ST category, is ultra vires and in conflict with Article 342 (1) of the Constitution which clearly ordains the president with this power.

An appeal was filed by Manipur Tribal Forum, Delhi, in the apex court against the order alongside a writ petition under Article 32, seeking safe evacuation of the tribals stranded in the camps set up by the Army and CRPF in the Imphal valley and for the establishment of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to be spearheaded by Harekrishna Deka, former DGP, Assam, and monitored by Justice (Retd.) T. Vaiphei, Chairman, Meghalaya Human Rights Commission.

The matters were heard simultaneously by the Supreme Court on May 9, wherein the Chief Justice of India orally remarked that the Manipur high court should have been informed of the president’s power on the subject and that no other authority has the power to amend the ST list as was held out in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2000). However, a stay order of the high court’s decision was not issued. While the court expressed its deep concern over the loss of human life and destruction of homes and places of worship, it directed the authorities to provide medical care and transportation of the injured. Direction was also given to the state to provide relief and rehabilitation. There was no mention of setting up the SIT as prayed by the petitioners.

Also read: ‘My Brother Was Beaten to Death on May 3. I Blame CM Biren Singh for the Manipur Violence’

The second hearing of the petitions was held on May 17. The Solicitor General informed the court that the Manipur high court extended the four weeks’ time in its earlier order on March 27 to one year for submitting the recommendations to the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs, taking into account the situation in Manipur.

The bench made a critical observation, reiterating once again that the high court has no role to play in the grant of ST status to a community. The petitioners had raised serious apprehensions on probable militant attacks on the tribal villages. The court directed law enforcement agencies in the state to take immediate and appropriate steps to counter such apprehensions. Meanwhile, a status reports filed in the Supreme Court held that the state was returning to normalcy. The matter is next listed for hearing in July.

The ST status debate

The high court, by providing an extension of the time period for the recommendation, reflects a lack of sensitive erudition on an important subject like this. The Constitution has not provided attributes for the categorisation, which had been taken care by the Lokur Committee in 1965. Five identifiers were recommended based on ‘primitive’ traits, primordially distinct culture, and isolation from the mainland, inhibitions of interconnections with others and of course backwardness.

These recommendations, as the Committee noted, were in the “interest of national integration”. The Meiteis fit into none of these parameters. Some within the Meiteis fulfil the Scheduled Caste and Other Backward Class categories. The majority of the Kuki-Zomi group believe that such a demand by a section of the Valley people is for economic dominance and control over tribal lands. The courts must exercise due diligence while dealing with sensitive matters such as this, lest it be a precedent for unqualified applicants to make a mockery of the system under the guise of petitions.

Why deviate from the facts?

It is important to point out that the petitions filed by the hill tribes seek to condemn the inhuman acts of violence conducted against the Kuki-Zomi community in Imphal as reports and evidence of the involvement of the Arambai Tenggol and Meitei Leepun miscreants in burning houses, churches and educational institutions and killing many innocent civilians belonging to the Kuki-Zomi tribe have emerged. However, the respondents claim that the violence resulted due to the influx of ‘illegal immigrants’ and poppy cultivation in the reserved forests.

This is appalling, as the legal hearings have nothing to do with any discussions on who an immigrant is or which cultivation leads to what ordeal. The CJI had rightfully remarked that the single bench judge was given time to “remedy the order and the errors, however no remedy was done.” Why has the high court, instead of reviewing and curing its previous order, granted a further extension? Also, it is puzzling why the apex court did not issue a stay on the Manipur HC order in the first hearing.

The debate on ‘illegal migrants’ is insignificant when the facts deal with inhuman acts of violence against a particular section of people in the state who are neither immigrants nor ‘illegal migrants’ from Myanmar.

Also read: My Family and I Lost Our Home – and Our Sense of Belonging – in the Manipur Violence

The fight against poppy production in Manipur can be won only if economically viable alternatives are provided to farmers, who are consistently excluded from development initiatives in the state. If fingers have to be pointed at an entire community for poppy cultivation, it can be said that the majority Meiteis are equally responsible as they play a major role in funding this poppy cultivation.

The fundamental issue here is of lives lost, crimes against humanity being committed by targeting a particular community, houses and places of worship being burnt down. Instead, there is a tendency among a section of people to conveniently frame the entire tribal community as perpetrators of violence simply because their past was filled with battles defending their land and identity. The need of the hour is to give justice where it is due.

Mercy V. Guite teaches Literature and Culture Studies in JNU, Mercy K. Khaute teaches at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi.

‘Completely Factually Wrong’: SC Slams Manipur HC Order on Meiteis and ST List

‘We have given Justice Muralidharan time to correct himself but he did not. I mean it’s very clear what to do if High Court doesn’t follow constitution judge benches.’

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday, May 17, made what LiveLaw reported as “strong remarks” against the Manipur high court’s direction to the state government to consider the inclusion of the Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribes’ list.

This order is understood to have led to significant anxiety among non-Meitei Manipur residents who are already on the Scheduled Tribes list. A protest against such an outcome in which the Meiteis would be included in the ST list, on May 3, led to brutal ethnic violence in the state, killing at least 60 people, injuring hundreds and displacing tens of thousands.

The LiveLaw report noted that while the bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud expresses its inclination towards staying the order, it eventually did not do so. Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala were also part of the bench.

“I think we have to stay the order of the High Court. We have given Justice Muralidharan time to correct himself but he did not. I mean it’s very clear what to do if High Court doesn’t follow constitution judge benches,” CJI Chandrachud remarked, orally.

Bar and Bench offered a slightly different version of the CJI’s words. This version comes across as more critical:

“We have to stay the order of the Manipur HC. It is completely factually wrong and we gave time to Justice Muralidharan to remedy his error and he did not…we have to take a strong view against it now.”

The order had come from acting Chief Justice M.V. Muralidharan of the Manipur high court.

The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta responded that the government asked for an extension considering the position on the ground and not a stay. Following this, he said, the high court had granted the Manipur government a year’s extension.

In the last hearing as well, CJI Chandrachud had made remarks critical of the high court ruling, stating that the verdict goes against constitution bench judgments that say that judicial orders cannot be passed to change the Scheduled Tribes list.

When the CJI asked the petitioner to appear before a division bench of the high court, Manipur Tribal Forum Delhi’s counsel, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves said that Kuki lawyers could not appear before the high court because their village is a kilometre away and “it’s very dangerous.”

CJI Chandrachud asked them to appear virtually.

To Gonsalves’s assertion that attacks were being yet planned against some communities, the Supreme Court urged the Manipur government to take appropriate action on such apprehensions.

BJP MLA Petitions SC Against HC Order on Recommending ST Status for Meiteis

Currently, only the tribes hailing from the hill districts of the northeastern border state are on the ST list.

New Delhi: Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA and chairman of the Hill Areas Committee (HAC) of the Manipur assembly Dinganglung Gangmei has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Manipur high court’s recent order directing the state government to recommend granting Scheduled Tribe (ST) status to the state’s majority community, the Meiteis, to the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs.

On April 20, a single-judge bench of the high court comprising Acting Chief Justice M.V. Murlidharan directed the N. Biren Singh government to recommend to the Union tribal affairs ministry that ST status be extended also to the Meiteis. The order said the recommendation must be sent by May 19.

Currently, only the tribes hailing from the hill districts of the northeastern border state are on the ST list. The bench was hearing a petition filed by members of the Meetei (Meitei) Tribe Union, a group formed to demand ST status to the community.

The court’s order was keeping in mind the ministry’s letter to the Manipur government a decade ago to recommend the same, which the then Congress government stayed away from. The Justice Murlidharan order of April 20 said, “Nothing has been produced by the respondents, particularly the respondent State to show that they sent reply to the letter dated 29.5.2013 of the Government of India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs. Thus, the issue of inclusion of Meetei/Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribes list of the Constituion is pending for nearly ten years and above.” It further said, “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.”

Gangmei, a BJP MLA from the state’s Nungba constituency in Tamenglong district, was among tribal leaders of the state who criticised the high court order. He had also circulated a public statement against the order, leading Justice Murlidharan to issue a contempt notice which directed the state director general of police to ensure his “personal appearance” along with the president of the All Tribal Students Union of Manipur (ATSUM) for a organising tribal solidarity march against the ST status demand. ATSUM had also issued a press note criticising the high court order.

The HAC exists within the state assembly as part of Article 371 C of the Constitution. All MLAS representing constituencies from the state’s hill districts are members of the HAC. On April 20, the HAC had passed a resolution stating that it “is perturbed/ aggrieved” by the high court order “inspite of strong opposition” to it. “In the matter, the HAC as a constitutional body of the hill areas of Manipur was neither made party to the case nor consulted.” It further said, “it is pertinent to mention that the Meitei/Meetei community are already protected under Constitution of India and categorized as (i) General (ii) Other Backward Classes (iii) and Scheduled Caste. In view of the above, the committee unanimously resolved to urge the Government of Manipur and the Government of India to go for appeals against” the high court order “taking into accounts the sentiments and interests/rights of the Scheduled Tribes of Manipur.”

With the state witnessing unprecedented violence between the tribal and the non-tribal population springing out of the demand since May 3, the HAC chairman has now approached the Supreme Court with a special leave petition (SLP) hinged on an argument that directing the state government to recommend a tribe for inclusion in the ST List is solely within the jurisdiction of the state and not the high court. The SLP has also indicated that the unprecedented unrest witnessed in the state that caused displacement of thousands of people, loss of property and life took place after the high court order. The SLP said, “Due to the impugned order tension between both the community have taken place and violent clashes have erupted across the state. As a result of it so far 19 tribal people have been killed, various places in the state are blocked, internet is completely shut down and more people are at the risk of losing their lives.” Several non-tribals were also affected by the violence, with many losing their lives and property destroyed.

Arguing against the April 20 high court order and also the contempt notice issued against him, the petitioner said, “the honourable High Court ought to have realized that this was a political problem in which the High Court had no role to play and the political disputes had to be resolved politically. By getting into the political arena and making a categorical order that the State Government is directed to submit a recommendation for the inclusion of the Meeteis/Meiteis in the Scheduled Tribe List to the Central Government, the High Court ambiguously and in all probability inadvertently gave rise to strong misgivings and worries and tensions among the tribals.” The petition further said, “…the High Court certainly, knowing the tenuous situation in the state ought not to have made the order passed. Taking out the contempt is certainly not the way forward,” thus appealing to the SC to quash it too.

Gangmei also questioned the argument placed by the petitioners in the Manipur high court that the tribal status to the Meiteis was left out during the Manipur kingdom’s merger with the Union of India and the community is also a tribe. The BJP MLA said, “In fact, they are very much an advanced community though some of them may come within SC, OBC.” The SLP further said the high court made the “error” of “concluding that the Meiteis are tribes”.

The Wire has learnt that Gangmei had approached the apex court for an “urgent hearing” of the petition on May 4, keeping in sight the escalating violence in the northeastern state, but it couldn’t be done as it was a court holiday owing to Buddha Purnima.