The committee noted that victims of ethnic violence in Manipur must have their relevant documents issued again because they were destroyed in the conflict. The possibility of updating the Manipur victim compensation plan and the committee’s suggestion for the nomination of subject-matter experts were also underlined. The bench further noted, after studying the reports, that the instances had been divided by the committee into categories related to compensation, violence against women, mental health treatment, medical care, relief camps, data reporting and monitoring, etc.
In order to examine the humanitarian components of the problem, including relief, corrective actions, rehabilitation actions, and restoration of houses and places of worship, a three-person committee was formed. The cases involving the conflict between the Meitei and Kuki people in Manipur were taken by the Supreme Court.
The CJI opened today’s proceedings by informing the counsels that the committee has submitted three reports.
The three Reports are described in more detail below:
- A report on the documents that Manipur citizens lost during the unrest. Dieser Report requests zwei Things: 1. Support with the reconstruction of crucial documentation for such Individuals, such as Aadhaar Cards, etc.;
- An update and Improvement of the Manipur Victim Compensation Scheme in light of the NALSA Scheme. For instance, the Manipur Victim Compensation Scheme stipulates that, if a victim has received benefits under other programmes, no compensation will be given to them under the Manipur Victim Programme;
- A report proposing the hiring of subject-matter experts for administrative guidance.
On Friday, the bench posted the situation for guidance. Justice Gita Mittal, a former Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, Justice ShaliniPhansalkar Joshi, a former Judge of the Bombay High Court, and Justice Asha Menon, a former Judge of the Delhi High Court, make up the three-person committee that was assembled by the Supreme Court.
The bench also highlighted that specific procedural guidelines were needed in this case to ensure the provision of necessary administrative support, financing to cover the committee’s financial obligations, appropriate publicity by setting up a work portal, and other infrastructure adjustments. In this regard, the CJI stated that Ms. Vrinda Grover may compile suggestions in conjunction with the committee, which will be communicated by Thursday morning with the Advocate General of Manipur. Include the issue on Friday. The CJI further noted that the cases had been divided into categories by the committee after studying the reports, including compensation, violence against women, mental health treatment, medical care, relief camps, data reporting and monitoring, etc.
Senior attorney Indira Jaising asked the bench to provide the committee the authority to establish its own procedure. She continued by saying that the Committee members lacked a place to sit and that Justice Gita Mittal had asked the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to assign her a seat. CJI DY Chandrachud responded, “I’ll talk to Justice Mittal and the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court about that.” She can use the Vulnerable Deposition Witness Creation Office, which is acceptable. The Ministry of Home Affairs can make the necessary arrangements, if not.
Regarding the State Police Probe, the Court took note of the State’s declaration that 42 SITs will be formed to handle cases that weren’t forwarded to the CBI. The Court stated that it would mandate the inclusion of at least one Inspector from various State Police Units in these SITs. Six DIG-rank-Officials from States other than Manipur would also oversee the State SITs. The Supreme Court had previously called police investigation „tardy” before that. The bench had remarked that there had been a dearth of arrests and that the FIRs had been filed some days after the incidents.
