Manipur Viral Video: Supreme Court’s strong remarks on horrific Manipur video | India News

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday said there is a need to evolve a broad mechanism to deal with violence against women in strife-torn Manipur and asked how many FIRs have been registered in such incidents since May.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told a bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud that the Union of India has no objection if the apex court monitors the investigation into the Manipur violence.
The bench, also comprising Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, is hearing a batch of petitions concerning the violence in Manipur.

At the outset, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the two women who were seen in a May 4 video being paraded naked in Manipur, said they have filed a petition in the matter.
During the hearing, CJI Chandrachud said that violence against women in Manipur is something that is of “an unprecedented magnitude”.
When Advocate Bansuri Swaraj spoke about crimes against women in West Bengal and Chhattisgarh, the CJI-led bench said that we cannot justify the incidents of Manipur by saying that “this and this happened elsewhere.”
“Undoubtedly there are crimes which are taking place against women across the country – that is our social reality. But here, we are dealing with something which is of unprecedented magnitude, namely crimes and perpetration of violence against women in a situation of communal and sectarian strife. There is no gainsaying the fact that crimes against women are taking place in all parts. The only answer is this. You cannot excuse what is taking place in one part of the country like Manipur on the ground that similar crimes are happening in other parts too. Questions is how do we deal with Manipur,” the court said.
The Supreme Court also said that the video of two tribal women being stripped and paraded naked may not be an isolated incident as the Union home secretary’s affidavit indicates.
It asked the Manipur government to give details of the number of FIRs registered on the sexual assault against women in the northeastern state during the ethnic strife.
The top court said there has to be a mechanism to ensure that FIRs in such cases are registered promptly, unlike the present case where the FIR was probed after the video came to light and the Supreme Court intervened.
The bench also questioned why the FIR was registered on May 18 when the incident happened on May 4. “What were the police doing from May 4 to May 18? The incident came to light that women are being paraded naked and at least two were raped. What were the police doing,” it asked.
Meanwhile, senior advocate Sibal opposed the transfer of the Manipur trial to Assam.
Attorney general R Venkataramani said that the CBI is currently probing the incident and when the occasion for trial would arise, the top court will take a call.
The apex court on July 20 observed that it was “deeply disturbed” by the video of two women being paraded naked in strife-torn Manipur, saying that using women as instruments for perpetrating violence is “simply unacceptable in a constitutional democracy”.
Taking cognisance of the video, a bench headed by the chief justice of India directed the Centre and the Manipur government to take immediate remedial, rehabilitative and preventive steps and apprise it of the action taken.
On July 27, the Centre informed the top court that it has transferred to the CBI the probe into a case related to two women being paraded naked in strife-torn Manipur, saying the government has “zero tolerance towards any crimes against women”.
The ministry of home affairs (MHA), in an affidavit filed through its Secretary Ajay Kumar Bhalla, also urged the top court to transfer the trial outside Manipur in the case for the conclusion of the trial in a time-bound manner. Seven people have been arrested in the case so far.
Scores of people have been killed and several hundred injured since ethnic violence broke out in the state on May 3 when a ‘Tribal Solidarity March’ was organised in the hill districts to protest against the majority Meitei community’s demand for Scheduled Tribe status.
(With inputs from PTI)