By K Raveendran
‘The planned visit of a six-member team of Supreme Court judges to Manipur this weekend to provide legal and humanitarian support to the victims of the ongoing violence sets a new precedent. Coordinated by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), the visit marks a rare instance of the Supreme Court directly engaging with a conflict zone, underlining the gravity of the situation in Manipur. Historically, the Supreme Court has been hesitant to intervene directly in such crises, preferring instead to direct subordinate courts or commissions to handle sensitive issues on the ground. This unprecedented step reflects both the severity of the situation in Manipur and the growing recognition that institutional intervention is necessary to restore order and uphold constitutional principles.
The visit stands out against the backdrop of limited Supreme Court involvement in Manipur’s crisis until now. While the apex court had previously addressed certain aspects of the violence, including in 2023 when a bench comprising Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra underscored the need to restore peace, punish perpetrators according to due process, and ensure public confidence in the justice system, these interventions had largely been confined to judicial pronouncements rather than direct engagement. The court’s statements at the time highlighted two critical issues: the need to re-establish the rule of law and the importance of ensuring that investigative and prosecutorial processes were seen as credible and impartial. However, there was a sense that these efforts were inadequate in addressing the scale and complexity of the crisis, which has deep political, ethnic, and social dimensions.
Manipur has been gripped by prolonged violence rooted in longstanding ethnic tensions, political instability, and a perceived failure of state institutions to protect vulnerable communities. The outbreak of violence has resulted in loss of lives, destruction of property, and widespread displacement of communities, with allegations of human rights violations and state complicity in certain acts of violence. The failure to effectively curb the violence and bring perpetrators to justice has eroded public confidence in the state and central governments, as well as in the legal and political frameworks designed to protect citizens’ rights. The Supreme Court’s decision to send a team of its own judges into the conflict zone reflects an acknowledgment that the situation has reached a point where conventional judicial interventions from Delhi are insufficient and that a more hands-on approach is required.
The significance of the judges’ visit is heightened when viewed in the context of the court’s general reluctance to engage directly with conflict zones. One of the few comparable instances dates back to 2014 when the Supreme Court ordered a team of district judges to visit Birbhum village in West Bengal after a tribal woman was allegedly gang-raped following a verdict by a village kangaroo court. In that case, the Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance of the incident, demonstrating the court’s willingness to act decisively in the face of grave human rights violations. However, sending a team of sitting Supreme Court judges to Manipur goes a step further, as it reflects a direct engagement with the human and legal dimensions of the crisis, rather than merely overseeing a fact-finding mission or issuing directives from afar.
Traditionally, the judiciary’s role has been seen as interpreting and applying the law rather than engaging in active crisis management. However, the deep dysfunction of state institutions in Manipur and the perceived failure of the political leadership to address the root causes of the conflict have created a vacuum that the judiciary appears compelled to fill. This raises broader constitutional and institutional questions about the separation of powers and the appropriate limits of judicial intervention in political and social conflicts. While the judiciary’s intervention may be necessary in the absence of effective executive action, it also underscores the fragility of the political system and the failure of democratic accountability mechanisms to resolve the crisis.
The visit also draws attention to the conspicuous absence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi from the conflict zone. Despite mounting public pressure and repeated calls for the Prime Minister to visit Manipur and engage with the affected communities, Modi has remained silent on the issue, limiting his public comments to broad statements about peace and national unity. His failure to visit Manipur has been widely criticized as a moral and political failure, reflecting a broader pattern of detachment from complex and politically sensitive issues. In contrast, the willingness of the Supreme Court to engage directly with the victims of violence and assess the ground reality sends a powerful message about institutional responsibility and moral leadership.
The contrast between the judiciary’s proactive engagement and the executive’s apparent indifference highlights a critical gap in political accountability. The Prime Minister’s reluctance to visit Manipur has been interpreted by many as a sign of political expediency and an unwillingness to confront the political and social complexities underlying the violence. This has fuelled perceptions that the central government is either indifferent to the suffering of the Manipuri people or complicit in perpetuating a status quo that benefits certain political and economic interests. Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court’s intervention appears not only as a legal necessity but also as an act of moral leadership—a statement that the rule of law and constitutional values cannot be sacrificed at the altar of political convenience.
By stepping into a political and humanitarian crisis of this magnitude, the Supreme Court is signalling that it views the protection of fundamental rights and the maintenance of the rule of law as non-negotiable duties, even when political institutions fail to act. This could embolden the judiciary to take a more assertive stance in other politically sensitive cases, setting a precedent for greater judicial oversight of executive and legislative actions in times of crisis. However, it also raises concerns about the limits of judicial authority and the potential for conflict between the judiciary and the executive over questions of political accountability and governance. (IPA Service)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
