Manipur Violence | Issue Aadhaar Cards To Displaced Persons After UIDAI Verification : Supreme Court

Continuing its ongoing monitoring of the issues arisen out of Manipur violence, a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, passed additional directions today to ensure the welfare of affected individuals and the restoration of stability in the region. At the same time, the bench also clarified that it did not intend to run the Manipur administration at the Supreme Court and urged the counsels to give the government and the administration some time to work through the issues.

At the outset, Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija, appearing for the judges' committee constituted by the Supreme Court, submitted before the court that the committee had filed twelve reports in the matter. She highlighted that the State of Manipur as well as the Union government had taken various steps to ensure that directions were issues with regards the same. However, she pointed out that certain necessary actions were yet to be taken and requested the court to issue directions for the same. 

It may be recalled that Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora was earlier representing the judges' committee and had recused herself after taking objection to certain adverse statements made against her in the affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary of the Manipur Government.

1. Restoration of Aadhaar Cards and Bank Details of Displaced Persons

One of the primary concerns raised by Makhija was the loss of Aadhaar cards by many individuals during the riots and the subsequent displacement of people. In response, the Bench directed that Aadhaar cards should be provided to all displaced persons whose records are available with the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) after thorough verification. Additionally, the Court also directed for bank account details of such persons to be provided to them and instructed the Health Secretary of Manipur to issue duplicate disability certifications for individuals who missed out during the period of displacement.

Here, the court underlined that it was necessary for biometric verification to be conducted before providing anyone with an Aadhaar card as in absence of such verification, illegal entrants could gain citizenship without following the correct procedure.

2. Shortage of Secretaries at the District Legal Service Authorities

Makhija also brought attention to the shortage of secretaries at the District Legal Service Authorities (DSLA), stating that there were seven vacancies that needed to be filled. "Since we need all hands on deck, if the state could appoint the secretaries...Some additional manpower is required," she added. The court was informed by the opposing counsel that nine secretaries had already been appointed for the nine judicial districts in Manipur. In response, the Court emphasized the importance of appointing additional paralegals if necessary. The court stated–

"If additional paralegals are required, they should also be appointed."

3. Centralized Nodal Counsel to Assist Displaced Persons 

The Court further directed the government of Manipur to allocate adequate funds for compensating the victims of the riots. However, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta expressed concerns about the Court's involvement in administrative matters, suggesting that such issues could be resolved through cooperation with the government. Makhija insisted that there was a need for a centralized nodal counsel to assist displaced individuals in guiding their grievances through appropriate channels. Here, the SG said–

"Some people have gone to Myanmar also. Would you need a nodal officer there too?"

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi interjected to the same and said–

"This is a very crass statement."

At this juncture, the CJI reminded the parties that the ongoing proceedings were not supposed to be adversarial in nature. The bench then directed the Union to nominate one nodal officer in Delhi to facilitate petitions and complaints, directing grievances of displaced persons to the appropriate authorities.

4. Committee Can Be Contacted For Issues That Arise

As the proceedings continued, the Solicitor reiterated that the issues raised before the court could might as well be raised with the Chief Secretary of Manipur or the Judges' committee for that matter. He stated that the Supreme Court need not be troubled by the same and said– "A telephonic call to chief secretary can sort out most of this, rather than troubling this court."

In the order, the Court acknowledged the Solicitor General's suggestion, stating, "The SG has submitted that in order to obviate the need for individual orders of this Court, the chairperson of the State may be contacted so that remedial action can be taken."

Regarding other issues raised during the proceedings, the Chief Justice suggested that the committee should be kept informed, and if the committee identified any issues requiring the Court's attention, they could return with their findings. He also emphasized that the Court did not intend to manage the administration of Manipur, stating, "We don't have time to hear this matter every week. We don't intend to run the Manipur administration here in the Supreme Court."

5. Protection for Religious Buildings

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi and Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves also raised concerns regarding destruction of churches and other religious buildings in Manipur. They relied on the ninth report of the judges' committee for the same. Gonsalves said–

"The state government should identify religious buildings vandalised and burnt in the violence. These buildings have to be reconstructed by the State."

It may be recalled, an earlier affidavit filed by Chief Secretary of Manipur in the matter, was objected to by Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi who had stated that instead of addressing the issue, the affidavit had sought to attribute motives on legally untenable grounds. He termed the statement in the affidavit as "whataboutery" as it questioned the petitioner for only taking up the cause of destruction of churches. Today, the bench directed–

"The State of Manipur and the Union of India is given one week to respond to the directions mentioned in the ninth report".

The Court also said that it will peruse the sealed cover report filed by the Manipur Government regarding seizure of weapons stolen from the State armoury.

Case Title: Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei And Ors Diary No. 19206-2023