Manipur: Petitioners Tell Supreme Court That Lawyers Aren't Willing To Appear For Them Due To Threats

Senior Advocate Anand Grover told the Supreme Court on Tuesday (September 12) that members of a particular community in Manipur are forced to approach the Top Court for relief as lawyers are not willing to appear for them due to threats.

As an example, he cited the instance of lawyers withdrawing from the case of Professor Kham Khan Suan Hausing in the Manipur High Court after the house and office of one of them was vandalised.

Grover was representing two petitioners before a bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud. The first petitioner was Vijaykant Chenji, a 76-year-old retired colonel of the Indian Army, against whom an FIR was registered for his book “The Anglo-Kuki War 1917-19: Victory in Defeat” published in January 2022. The second petitioner was Henminlun, an activist who is facing an FIR over a speech delivered by him.

During the hearing, Grover said that the petitioner was unable to find legal representation in the State of Manipur as the lawyers appearing in cases such as the present one before the High Court had their chambers ransacked and were not willing to appear. Grover submitted–

"A book was published by him one year ago. He's a colonel. There is not a word about the communities in the book, just military tactics and he is prosecuted. In Manipur, the lawyers' houses and offices were ransacked and two of them are now in the camp. They cannot instruct me."

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Manipur, questioned the claim that lawyers were being attacked for representing certain parties. He said–

"This issue is being raised repeatedly. Whenever any riot takes place, some lawyer, some doctor, some engineer-it happens...not a lawyer who represented..."

To this, Grover responded–

"Of course the lawyer who represented. I don't think my learned friend knows the facts. I will show him the photographs. It is a very shocking incident. The learned advocate- three of them were appearing. He rang me up and said that I cannot appear in the matter because of issues. They are from Imphal. They belong to a community. They withdraw their appearance before the court. Their houses and offices were ransacked. One of them had to flee. The other one has taken refuge in the CRPF camp. I can't get anyone to do anything or file anything."

However, SG Tushar Mehta asserted that the High Court of Manipur was in session and there was a "pattern" of counsels telling the Supreme Court otherwise. He said–

"Let the secretary general of this court speak to the registrar general of the High Court and ask if the High Court is functioning...One section is bringing everything here and painting a picture that the courts are closed...Yesterday, I was told that lawyers are appearing physically as well as virtually. My learned friend can appear virtually. There is something more than that. I am not on this matter. I am just saying that there is a larger pattern by a certain section."

The CJI, remarking that the petitioner was a retired colonel and had to be protected, said–

"He is a retired colonel. He wrote a book. He must be protected. The only question is do we protect you here or send you back to the High Court..."

Accordingly, the bench asked Grover if the petitioner would file an affidavit to the effect that it was difficult for the petitioner to find a lawyer who would appear for him before the High Court in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The senior advocate agreed to the same. Further, interim protection was provided to the petitioner. The court stated–

"Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with FIR No 661(8)2023 dated 9 August 2023 registered at Police Station Imphal at District Imphal West, Manipur."

The CJI then told the parties–

"We have said that it is not possible for you to engage lawyers who would appear on your behalf in the High Court."

The SG objected to the same and said–

"Initially the statement was that no lawyer is appearing."

However, the CJI remarked–

"We will read between the lines."

Regarding the case of the second petitioner Henminlun, Grover said that the petitioner is yet to be provided with a copy of the FIR. As per an administrative notification of the Manipur High Court, a copy of the FIR is required to file a petition. Therefore, Grover said that asking the petitioner to approach the High Court may not be an efficacious remedy.

Responding to this, CJI said :

"On merits, we are inclined to send you to the High Court under 482. What we can do is, we can say right now that a copy of the FIR shall be served within a period of one week. We will protect you for a limited period and say now you go under 482."

To this, Grover reiterated his earlier submission and asserted–

"Here I will not be able to go to the High Court because he belongs to the minority community. Nobody will appear for me. In Imphal, all the people of that community have been ousted. There are no lawyers appearing."

SG raised an objection to the same and said– "Say that in an affidavit!" Responding to SG's objection, Grover referred to a recent resolution passed by the Supreme Court Bar Association condemning the attack against lawyers in Manipur.

Grover added that in the Professor's case, a legal aid lawyer had to be appointed as the other lawyers withdrew.

"In the other matter, the Chief Justice was kind enough to mention that he will appoint a legal aid. That was the professor's case. It was impossible for us to afford the fees – a legal aid lawyer, this is what is happening."

Eventually, the court directed for the petitioners to file an affidavit as mentioned earlier. The CJI remarked–

"First, we have called for an affidavit from you. Then we will ask the Registrar General of the High Court to submit a report because if there is substance in this, this is a very serious matter. The lawyers are not appearing. And then we will indicate the steps that we will take. First, we would require your client to put the oath to paper. Then we will ask the State of Manipur to verify and then we will call for a report from the Registrar General. Even if the lawyer is not available, we will find out if legal aid for your client can be made available. Our conscience has to be satisfied that people are not being represented."

As the court closed its proceedings, the CJI also remarked– "We also don't want to convert our court into 482 court. We need a balance, a solution."

It may be noted, that last week, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) had expressed serious concerns at reports regarding the ransacking of the home and office of Manipur lawyer S Chittaranjan for representing Kuki professor Kham Khan Suan Hausing in a criminal case. Earlier, reports had emerged that the home of Soraisham Chittaranjan, Hausing's lawyer, had been vandalised by a mob. Following this, he and three other Imphal-based lawyers told the Manipur High Court that they were withdrawing from representing the Hyderabad University professor. In a resolution passed, the Supreme Court Bar Association has said that it has ‘taken serious notice’ of the news reports about the vandalism, harshly criticising the attempt to intimidate lawyers and interfere with the administration of justice. The SCBA also declared that it stands in solidarity with the lawyer whose home was attacked by an angry mob.

The matter is now listed for October 6, 2023.