A vacation bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal concluded that the petitioners had not made a compelling case for contempt against the respondents, which included Manipur’s chief secretary. The court suggested that the petitioners explore other legal remedies available to them
KRC TIMES National Bureau
The Supreme Court on May 24 stated its commitment to legal principles over sentiments, declining a petition seeking contempt action against Manipur officials for allegedly failing to protect properties of those displaced during the recent violence in the state.
A vacation bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal concluded that the petitioners had not made a compelling case for contempt against the respondents, which included Manipur’s chief secretary. The court suggested that the petitioners explore other legal remedies available to them.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing Manipur, argued that no contempt had occurred, asserting that both the state and central governments were actively addressing public concerns. Bhati remarked, “The effort is to keep the pot boiling, which is very unfortunate,” and pledged that the state would file an updated status report on the measures taken to protect displaced persons’ properties.
The petitioners had accused the respondents of violating the Supreme Court’s order from September 25 of the previous year, which mandated the protection of properties belonging to those displaced by ethnic conflicts. The bench questioned the validity of the contempt claims, particularly focusing on the role of the chief secretary.
When the petitioners’ counsel contended that their clients, who are currently living outside Manipur, could not return to their properties in Imphal, the bench responded, “That does not mean that notice be issued against the chief secretary.”
Bhati cited the September 25 order, stating that the state had complied by filing a status report and was ready to provide an updated one. She reassured the court of the government’s ongoing commitment to protecting its citizens and their properties amid the “uneasy calm” in Manipur.
The petitioners alleged that their properties had been looted in the presence of police, a claim Bhati dismissed as unfounded. The bench supported Bhati’s stance, emphasizing that authorities were obligated to protect properties and uphold court orders.
The court reiterated its sympathy for the petitioners’ plight but maintained that no contempt case was substantiated. “Your properties need to be protected, but that does not mean we have to issue contempt notice to the respondents,” the bench declared. It encouraged the petitioners to pursue appropriate legal channels if they felt aggrieved by any actions or inactions of the respondents.
The ethnic violence in Manipur, triggered by a high court order considering the inclusion of the non-tribal Meitei community in the list of Scheduled Tribes, has resulted in over 170 deaths and numerous injuries since it erupted on May 3 last year. The violence began with a ‘Tribal Solidarity March’ in hill districts opposing the Meitei community’s ST status demand.
Promotional | 5E for Success
