On July 11, the Supreme Court of India declined Manipur Tribal Forum’s plea seeking directions for the Indian Army to protect the Kukis group in the State. The court’s three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Mishra, heard the case.
The court said that in the 72 years of its existence, the Supreme Court has never issued directions to the Indian Army on how to conduct military, security or rescue operations. “Frankly, in the history of our nation in the last 70 years, the Supreme Court has not given directions to the Indian Army. One of the great hallmarks of democracy is the civilian control over armed forces. Let us not breach what has been a strong point of our nation,” the bench said.
“We will not do that. We are not going to issue direction to the armed forces,” the court remarked, in response to the Kuki group’s counsel Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves seeking directions to the Indian Army to protect Kukis.
The court said that the maintenance of law and order as well as the preservation of the security of the State, fell within the domain of the elected government and it would not be appropriate for the court to issue directives to the Army and paramilitary forces. Hence, the court cannot issue directives on “where a particular battalion of soldiers has to be deployed etc.”
When the Kuki group’s counsel repeated their request to deploy Indian Army, the court said that matters concerning the maintenance of law and order and the security of the state fall within the executive’s domain. The court opined that it would not be appropriate for it to issue specific directions to the Indian Army or paramilitary forces while impressing the governments to ensure the protection of lives and properties for the people of Manipur.
“The maintenance of law and order and preservation of the security of the State are essentially matters which fall in the domain of the executive. The deployment of the army or paramilitary forces must be left to the State administration and the Union of India to oversee. The Union of India and the State of Manipur should make sufficient arrangements to ensure the protection of the lives and properties of all citizens and residents of the State of Manipur,” the court said.
“However, we impress upon State and Union of India to ensure there is the protection of life and liberty of people in Manipur, where exactly a particular battalion will be etc. is a dangerous area for us to get into,” the court remarked. The court also said that it is monitoring the situation and would not hesitate to issue calibrated orders if necessary, within the scope of judicial review.
Notably, the Solicitor General of India objected to certain contentions put forth by Colin Gonsalves, accusing the Government of India and the State government. The court also intervened and reminded Gonsalves that his allegations would make it difficult to progress if he claims that the Government of India and the State government were aligned with certain terror outfits, as the Solicitor General would not accept it.
Earlier, Colin Gonsalves contended that everyone was against Kukis. The CJI, responding to Gonsalves’ allegations, said that court proceedings should not be used as a platform to escalate violence or exacerbate existing problems. Colin Gonsalves alleged that the state is using terrorist organisations to escalate violence, he said, “This is a case of severe escalation by armed groups which are notified in UAPA. These are being used by the State…”
“This is not the platform where we do this…we should be conscious of the remit of the Supreme Court. We cannot run the law and order on the ground, elected government does. We understand your feelings but there should be certain modalities of arguing before this Court,” the CJI responded.
The court further appreciated suggestions put forth by Advocate Nizam Pasha, appearing for the Zomi Students Federation of India, which the State of Manipur accepted, except for three suggestions for which consultations would be held with the State administration. The court further directed that positive action is taken on Pasha’s suggestions by July 14, and an updated Action Taken Report is filed within two weeks.
