Civil society group suggests SC-monitored SIT probe into Manipur violence cases
The 'Independent People's Tribunal on the Ongoing Ethnic Conflict in Manipur', headed by Kurian Joseph, former Judge of the Supreme Court, also recommended that the "hate propaganda and inflammatory speeches" that led to "incitement and escalation" of violence need to be prosecuted along with action against the authorities who "failed to exercise their powers to prevent it".
The recommendations were made in a report prepared after a team of jurors and experts visited the conflict-affected areas in Manipur and held sittings in different districts of Manipur, including Bishnupur, Churachandpur, Imphal East, Imphal West, Kakching, Kangpokpi, Senapati, followed by sittings in Delhi, to record testimonies and receive submissions from various stakeholders, according to a press release.
Additionally, testimonies and submissions were also received by jury members virtually. The team members also visited a number of relief camps in Manipur to talk to survivors, including children, women and elderly displaced on account of the conflict.
Survivors and victims from different communities, service organisations providing relief to affected people, and organisations representing community interests, deposed before the tribunal. The team members also met with various government functionaries and officials of security forces.
"The Supreme Court should appoint an SIT consisting of senior independent officers from states other than Manipur to monitor the cases arising out of the conflict. The SIT should be monitored by the Supreme Court, and the SIT should report to the Supreme Court every month," the press release said.
The tribunal recommended that the Supreme Court-appointed SIT should investigate the role of the armed forces and other security forces in the conflict, and there should be a departmental enquiry as well as criminal action against those found to have violated the law in any way, not only by direct participation but also by omission to act appropriately.
The SIT should investigate the incidents of hate speeches which occurred directly prior to and during the conflict and arrest and prosecute the perpetrators, including political figures and state functionaries, and the state government should provide adequate protection to all the witnesses.
The tribunal also suggested that a permanent bench of the Manipur High Court should be established in the hill region, it said.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
a minute ago
- Hindustan Times
Day before SIR hearing, EC files compliance report before SC
New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has filed a compliance report before the Supreme Court ahead of Friday's hearing on the ongoing revision of Bihar's electoral rolls, which has drawn scrutiny after large-scale deletions. The Supreme Court building in New Delhi. (HT Photo) A person aware of the development told Hindustan Times that the Commission has submitted a 'three-to-four page compliance report which says that all the suggestions made by the Supreme Court on August 14 have been complied with promptly.' The source added that the ECI has also placed on record a status report, giving details of the directions issued to the District Electoral Officers (DEOs) as well as the reports received back from them. 'The Commission had asked all 38 DEOs to furnish the status of compliance with the Court's orders, and these have now been compiled and submitted,' the person said. CEC Gyanesh Kumar, at a press conference on Sunday had said that the Commission has complied with SC's directives in '56 hours.' The Court, on August 14, had recorded the ECI's consent to adopt interim measures designed to improve transparency in the electoral roll revision. These measures require the online publication of the names of nearly sixty-five lakh voters who appeared in the 2025 rolls but are missing from the draft rolls. Each district's website is to host booth-wise data, searchable by EPIC number, along with reasons for exclusion. The Bench had set a deadline of August 19 for completing the exercise. To ensure that the exercise is not limited to digital publication, the Bench also directed wide publicity. 'The lists must be publicised in vernacular newspapers with wide circulation and broadcast on television and radio,' the Court noted, adding that district-level officials should also use their social media platforms to alert voters. Further, the booth-level officers were instructed to display the excluded-voter lists at Block Development Offices or Panchayat offices, so that citizens in rural areas could physically inspect them. The Bench also required that the notices should expressly inform citizens that they may file claims for inclusion in the rolls, accompanied by a copy of their Aadhaar card. A consolidated state-level list is also to be made available on the website of the Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar. 'The idea is to ensure that no eligible voter is left without recourse,' the Bench had observed while fixing the matter for monitoring on August 22. Friday's hearing, advanced to 12 pm from the initially scheduled 2 pm, is expected to be brief as Justice Bagchi, who leads the Bench, has to preside over a special bench at 3 pm. 'The court might give further directions after taking a note of the report,' the person cited earlier said.
Hindustan Times
33 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Can't let Governors sit on bills indefinitely: SC
New Delhi: Permitting governors to sit indefinitely on bills passed by state legislatures may render the democratic process and the will of the people 'defunct', the Supreme Court observed on Thursday, as it continued hearing the presidential reference on whether the courts can prescribe timelines for gubernatorial and presidential assent. The Supreme Court building in New Delhi. (HT Photo) A constitution bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar is examining President Droupadi Murmu's Article 143 reference made in May. The reference seeks clarity on the top court's April 8 ruling which, for the first time, laid down timelines for governors and the president to decide on state bills pending before them. 'If a particular function is entrusted to the governor and for years he withholds it, will that also be beyond the scope of judicial review of this court? When this court has set aside constitutional amendments taking away judicial review as violating the basic structure, can we now say that however high a constitutional authority may be, courts will still be powerless if it does not act?' the bench asked. The bench also pressed the Centre to explain what remedy exists when governors indefinitely delay action. 'Under Article 200, if we hold that the governor has unlimited power to withhold a bill for time immemorial, what is the safeguard for a duly elected legislature? Suppose a legislature elected by a two-thirds majority passes a bill unanimously, and the governor simply sits on it, it would make the legislature totally defunct,' it further remarked. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, countered that while the court's concern may be justified, it cannot assume jurisdiction to set time limits where the Constitution is silent. 'A justification can never confer jurisdiction. Every problem in this country may not have a solution in the Supreme Court. Some problems must find solutions within the system,' he said. According to Mehta, the solution was in the 'political process, not judicial directions'. He argued that chief ministers could engage directly with governors, prime ministers, or even the President to resolve such impasses. 'Such issues have been arising for decades but have always been resolved through political statesmanship and maturity. Why cannot we trust other constitutional functionaries? The remedy ultimately will lie with Parliament by way of an amendment, not by judicial legislation,' Mehta submitted. At this, the bench interjected: 'When there is no outer limit, can a constitutional interpretation be left to a vacuum? Though a time limit may not be prescribed, there must be some way the process works. There cannot be a situation where not acting on a bill itself is a full stop… nothing further.' The bench also questioned whether judicial review could be completely excluded. The court observed: 'The decision may not be justiciable, but the decision-making process certainly falls within the ambit of judicial review.' Mehta, however, warned that opening the door to scrutiny would lead to 'multilevel challenges' at every stage of a governor's or president's decision under Articles 200 and 201. 'Our problem is every step before the final decision will also be challenged because they can also constitute a 'decision',' he argued. He cited judicial precedents where the court held that fixed timelines for criminal trials could not be judicially prescribed, to reinforce his submission that timelines in constitutional processes too cannot be judicially imposed. But the bench pressed further, citing petitions already filed by Kerala, Punjab, and West Bengal. 'Suppose a decision is not taken for four years. What happens to the democratic set-up of the government? What happens to the will of the two-thirds majority of the legislature?' it asked. Mehta responded with an analogy: 'Take the example of a trial pending for 10 years. Can the President step in and declare that the punishment is deemed to have been undergone because the judiciary has delayed? Separation of powers means some issues are non-justiciable.' The court, however, made it clear that it was not dealing with a hypothetical concern. 'We are having petitions from at least four states,' the court underlined. The presidential reference, prompted by the court's April judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, asks whether the judiciary can impose timelines on constitutional authorities like governors and the president when the Constitution itself is silent. In that ruling, a two-judge bench also fixed a three-month deadline for the president to decide on bills referred by a governor, and one month for a governor to act on re-enacted bills. It had even invoked Article 142 to deem 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented to, after holding that the governor's prolonged inaction was 'illegal'. Mehta criticised the notion of deemed assent. 'Deemed assent would mean your lordships substituted yourselves for the governor and declared the assent deemed to have been granted. Article 142 cannot be used to amend the Constitution,' he argued. The bench, however, maintained that courts cannot abdicate their role as custodians of the Constitution. 'Every wrong has to have a remedy. Whether the hands of the constitutional court will be tied when a constitutional functionary refuses to discharge their function without any valid reason? Whether the court will say we are powerless?' the bench asked. Arguments on the reference will continue on August 26.
Indian Express
33 minutes ago
- Indian Express
NTCA limits tiger corridors to minimal requirement, multiple projects to benefit
In a volte-face less than a month after it affirmed before the Bombay High Court that the identification of tiger corridors must take cognizance of multiple scientific studies and parameters, the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) issued a clarification yesterday, limiting the number of such corridors, primarily, to only 32 'least cost pathways' identified in 2014. Tiger corridors are vital wildlife pathways that connect tiger habitats, enabling animal movement, gene flow, and long term survival. Under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, development projects requiring land in or around tiger reserves or corridors require statutory clearance from the standing committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SC-NBWL). Among the potential beneficiaries of the new limited definition of tiger corridors are Western Coalfields Limited (Durgapur open cast mines) and Lloyds Metals & Energy (Surajgarh iron ore mines) in Maharashtra. Asked about the turnabout, NTCA's inspector general (forests) Sanjayan Kumar, who issued the clarification in a letter to all state governments yesterday, declined to comment. While discussing the Western Coalfields mining project within a tiger corridor connecting the Tadoba-Kanhargoan-Tipeshwar forests in Maharashtra's Chandrapur district at the March 12 meeting of the SC-NBWL, a senior ministry official observed that projects that did not fall within the least cost pathways designated for tigers were being sent from Maharashtra even though such projects should not require SC-NBWL approval. Considering the same project at the 84th meeting of the SC-NBWL on June 26, the Director General (Forests) noted that 'Maharshtra alone is facing this issue' and the Environment Secretary said that the NTCA should 'clarify that the only the least cost pathways identified by them should be treated as tiger corridors.' But the NTCA was already issued notice by the Bombay High Court on June 25 in a case challenging the decision taken by the Maharashtra State Board for Wildlife (SBWL) on April 17 to send for SC-NBWL approval only those projects that fell within the least cost tiger pathways. Among the projects up for discussion at that SBWL meeting were two proposals requiring 9.5 sq km of forest land — mining of hematite from quartzite, systemic recovery of iron ore, and laying out of roadside conveyors — in Surajgarh mines run by Lloyds Metals & Energy in Gadchiroli's Etapalli. On July 25, in its affidavit before the Bombay HC, the NTCA cited a letter issued 'with the power conferred to it' under the Wildlife Act to Maharashtra in 2023 to reiterate multiple benchmarks for defining tiger corridors: * Protected Areas occupied by tigers, * Least cost pathways identified in 2014, * Corridors marked in Tiger Conservation Plans (TCPs) of each reserve, * Corridors identified by Wildlife Institute of India (WII) — 'Tiger corridors of eastern Vidarbha landscape' — in 2016, * Corridors identified by WII — 'Telemetry based tiger corridors of Vidarbha' landscape' — in 2021, and * Distribution of tigers based on quadrennial all-India Tiger Estimations (AITEs) At today's hearing, the NTCA modified that stand by placing on record the clarification it issued yesterday. This reduced the benchmarks for tiger corridors only to the 'least cost pathways' identified in its 2014 report and the ones recorded by tiger reserves in their individual TCPs. The exclusion of multiple WII studies and the robust AITE data has surprised many as the 2014 NTCA report itself cautioned that 'the corridors shown in this report are minimal requirement' and that 'alternative connectivities do exist in many areas' which 'need to be conserved.' In fact, the last month's affidavit said that the NTCA was 'in the process of the refinement of tiger corridors' based on the AITE data. 'It is unlikely that a refined corridor report will be released before the Maharashtra issues are settled unless the HC specifically asks for it,' said an Environment ministry official. The case will come up again after two weeks. This July, researchers from Nagpur-based LRC Foundation applied contemporary Circuitscape modelling, which reflects multiple probable paths of animal movement—not just the 'shortest route' – to come up with 192 corridors form a dense network across 10 central Indian states, enabling tiger movement across 30 tiger reserves and around 150 protected areas.
