Show Materials Indicating Authenticity Of Audio Clips Against Manipur CM : Supreme Court To Kuki Organization

The Supreme Court on Friday (November 8) heard a petition filed by a Kuki organization seeking a court-monitored investigation into certain leaked audio clips which allegedly implicate Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh for instigating ethnic violence in the State.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwal and Justice Manoj Misra asked the petitioner to produce materials indicating the authenticity of the audio clips.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner Kuki Organization for Human Rights Trust, submitted that the clips had "disturbing conversations" and the CM could be heard admitting that he instigated the violence and protected the attackers.

"It shows that the CM has not only fuelled the violence there, he has allowed arms and ammunitions to be looted and also protected the armed insurgents," Bhushan said. He submitted that though the clips were submitted to the Justice Lamba Commission, which is enquiring into Manipur violence, no action has taken place for four months.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State, vehemently opposed the petition, saying that the petitioner should approach the High Court. "Merely because they approached Mr.Bhushan, petition can't be filed here," he said.

"This is a very special case. This Court is dealing with the Manipur matter and has appointed one committee. This is a very shocking case," Bhushan submitted. SG countered that if the Supreme Court entertained the matter, the "majesty of the High Court would be undermined."

The bench then told Bhushan to show some material regarding the authenticity of the materials.

"Mr.Bhushan, what we will do is this. We will give you an opportunity to place some material on record which will lead us to have some prima facie opinion on the credibility of the audio clips. We are not commenting on it," CJI said.

"The authenticity can be ascertained by a forensic lab," Bhushan replied.

"You can file an affidavit before us, indicating the source from which it came," CJI suggested. Bhushan said that the source cannot be revealed as there is a serious threat to life. "The source is under a threat of life," Bhushan said.

"Give it to us in a sealed cover," CJI suggested. Bhushan said that the Court must ask the Lamba Commission what action it took for four months. CJI however said that the Court will not get into the Lamba Commission at the moment.

SG then said that the intention of the petitioner was "to keep the fire burning." "I am astounded by the submission of the Solicitor General," Bhushan replied.

"We have also seen several CDs. We have also seen the reports of Truth Laboratory. Don't go into all this," SG said.

The bench then dictated an order saying :

"Before the Court can consider the submissions which have been made on the basis of an audio clip, we deem it appropriate to grant the petitioner to file before this Court the material indicating the authenticity of the clips." The bench also recorded SG's preliminary objection as well.

Bhushan said that he cannot reveal the source and agreed to submit the tapes themselves.

"There are several vested interests who are not permitting the situation to be normal," SG said. "This is astounding," Bhushan stated.

"If tomorrow I get some audio clip showing Mr.Bhushan talking to Mr.Gonsalves that this is how we get money from A B C D, would I produce it? I will not do it. I will not be that irresponsible. Would I be entitled to approach Article 32?" SG stated.

At this juncture, Attorney General for India R Venkataramani appeared to object to the petition, saying that the administration should be given leeway to restore peace and asked if the Courts should interfere in that process.

"We do not know the position on the ground. We have a porous border. We have materials coming from across the border. Your lordships are sitting in an ivory tower," SG said.

CJI however took objection to the "ivory tower" remark. "We are not living in an ivory tower. It is because we are not sitting in an ivory tower that we have not dismissed the petition. We are also aware of what is happening in Manipur. We have a duty as Constitutional Court. We don't appreciate any attempt to brush things under the carpet."

SG apologised and said that he did not use the term in a pejorative sense and just wanted to convey that the Court may not know the intentions behind the parties.

Case : KUKI ORGANIZATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS TRUST Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 702/2024