Author: Jessica Sana Minj, Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur
Abstract
Particularly in light of internal conflict and divided chaos, the Supreme Court of India’s involvement in the ethnic violence in Manipur represents a noteworthy instance of judicial activism. The Court created a corrective legal framework based on fundamental constitutional guarantees like the right to life (Article 21), equal protection under the law (Article 14), and special protections for women (Article 15(3)) in response to concerning petitions that revealed unacceptable constitutional failures, such as the breakdown of law and order, targeted violence against minority communities, and sexual atrocities against women. The Court prioritized victim-centric justice and accountability by directing CBI-led investigations, independent fact-finding, and oversight by former judges. The boundaries of judicial accountability in intercommunal disputes are being reshaped by this strategy, which contrasts with governmental inaction and executive indifference. In addition to highlighting the judiciary’s critical role in preserving secularism, human rights, and constitutional morality during ethnic crises, the episode exposes structural weaknesses in India’s federal governance.
To the Point:
Since May 2023, Manipur’s Meitei and Kuki groups have been engaged in ethnic conflicts that have resulted in widespread human rights abuses, protracted violence, and the breakdown of the state. A commission headed by previous female justices was established by the Supreme Court of India, using its extraordinary authority under Article 142, to oversee the probe into the crimes, which included property destruction, extrajudicial murders, and sexual violence. The case brings up important issues of gender justice, federalism, state accountability, and the abuse of emergency provisions like the AFSPA.
Use of Legal Jargon:
Colorful Power Exercise: In essence, what cannot be done openly is done indirectly when an authority acts in the name of legal authority but the true goal is unlawful or outside its purview.
Dismantling of the Constitutional Mechanism: A circumstance that warrants intervention under Article 356 (President’s Rule) when a state administration is unable to operate in conformity with constitutional provisions.
Part III Violation of Fundamental Rights: Any action (or inaction) by the state that violates rights protected by Articles 12–35 of the Constitution, including the rights to equality, dignity, and life.
Due Process of Law: A rule that shields people from capricious governmental action by mandating that legal proceedings be reasonable, fair, and compliant with accepted legal standards.
Doctrine of Command Responsibility: A principle holding superior officials or authorities accountable for human rights violations committed by their subordinates when they knew or should have known about them.
Continuing Mandamus: A type of writ where the court retains jurisdiction and continuously monitors compliance with its directions to ensure effective implementation of justice.
Compensatory Jurisprudence: Legal recognition of compensation as a remedy for the violation of fundamental rights, especially under Article 32 and Article 226.
Judicial Review in Cases of Administrative Inaction
The power of the courts to review and correct executive or administrative inaction where it leads to denial of rights or breach of statutory duties.
The Proof:
While state officials did nothing, videos verified by the CBI showed mobs displaying women in nude parades.
Civil society and NHRC reports detailed the demolition of homes and places of worship, as well as enforced disappearances.
When Manipur Police FIRs were available, they were frequently ambiguous or delayed.
While state government pronouncements denied that the AFSPA contributed to rising tensions, its implementation in some hill regions allowed impunity.
According to the Union Home Ministry, about 150 people were killed and over 60,000 were displaced.
Case Laws :
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241
Laid the foundation for protecting women’s dignity under Article 21; relied upon in framing judicial guidelines in absence of statutory safeguards.
DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
Recognized custodial violence as a gross violation of Article 21; relevant in Manipur due to military-civilian conflicts.
Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011) 7 SCC 547
Held that state-supported vigilantism and failure to protect tribal rights violated constitutional mandates; cited in Manipur hearings.
PUCL v. Union of India (2004) 9 SCC 580
Dealt with the scope of AFSPA; emphasized necessity of proportional force and safeguards against arbitrary killings.
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746
Established state liability for custodial death and right to compensation under public law remedy.
Conclusion
The Manipur crisis reveals the significant structural shortcomings of governance during ethnic conflicts and starkly illustrates how vulnerable state institutions are to handling identity-based violence. The Supreme Court’s early involvement restored its position as the protector of fundamental rights and the rule of law in the face of political inertia and administrative stagnation. The Court filled a gap left by the executive branch and gave impacted people hope by requiring independent investigations, CBI supervision, and victim-focused monitoring through judicial committees. However, strong implementation procedures, systemic changes to conflict legislation like the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), and the restoration of public confidence in state institutions—particularly in underserved areas—are necessary for such court action to be effective in the long run. The case serves as a crucial reminder that delayed justice in communal violence equates to impunity, and that judicial vigilance can, and must, pave a constitutional path to accountability and reconciliation.
FAQS
Q1. What was the legal basis for the Supreme Court’s intervention in Manipur?
The Court exercised its powers under Article 32 (writ jurisdiction) and Article 142 (complete justice) in response to PILs alleging systemic failure of law enforcement and violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21.
Q2. What role did AFSPA play in the violence?
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 was operative in certain hill districts and granted immunity to armed forces, which allegedly emboldened lawlessness and hindered accountability.
Q3. Why did the Court appoint a committee of former judges?
The bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud appointed the panel to ensure independent monitoring of investigation, especially of gender-based crimes, and to assist in victim rehabilitation and confidence-building.
Q4. Can the judiciary override state government decisions in such cases?
Yes, under Article 356 read with judicial review, courts can intervene when there is breakdown of constitutional machinery, though actual imposition of President’s Rule is a political decision.
Q5. What precedents does this case set for future internal conflicts?
It reinforces the principle that victims’ rights and constitutional guarantees override state autonomy during communal violence and empowers courts to play a proactive remedial role.
