'Petition Based On Assumption That One Community Is Guilty For Violence' : Supreme Court Turns Down PIL On Manipur

On Monday(July 31), the Supreme Court declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) relating to Manipur observing that the petition was filed with an assumption that one particular community has to be held liable for the ethnic violence.

The bench, consisting of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, expressed reservations about the plea's broad nature and its assumption that a specific community was solely responsible for the violence in Manipur.  The court suggested the petitioner to come back with a specific prayer. The PIL was accordingly withdrawn.

At the outset, Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, representing the petitioner sought to establish the petitioner's credentials. However, CJI Chandrachud remarked–

"This proceeds on the basis that one part of the community is really guilty of the violence. Therefore, this is a very difficult position for us to entertain. Look at the first prayer- declare that so and so groups have violated the terms of suspension of operations pact; direct investigation by respondents into narco terrorism in the North East; direct formation of an SIT led by a retired judge investigate into the recent violence by so and so community; then you want something from NHRC, collection of tax under National Highway Act, Ministry of Environment to go into the destruction of trees and deforestation...These are sometimes not genuine petitions."

He added, "Come back with the petition on a specific issue and we will deal with it. But to brand one group in Manipur as terrorists – that's difficult...I am a little careful about entertaining petitions like this."

In response, Senior Advocate Divan argued that issues like deforestation, drug problems, and poppy cultivation were serious problems. CJI Chandrachud questioned the applicability of Article 32 to address these issues, stating, "Can article 32 to control that? It is not amenable to judicial standards."

Divan then stated that she understood that the prayer should not be one-sided and assured the court, saying, "There should be an independent inquiry. We will reframe the petition."

However, Chief Justice Chandrachud suggested, "Withdraw at this stage and give liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with the law."

Accordingly, the PIL was withdrawn.

Case Title: Mayanglambam Bobby Meetei v. Union Of India And Ors. Diary No. 23183-2023 PIL

Click Here To Read/Download Order