New Delhi: The Supreme Court underscored its commitment to legal principles over emotional appeals, declining a petition for contempt action against Manipur officials accused of failing to protect the properties of those displaced by recent violence in the state.
A vacation bench consisting of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal concluded that the petitioners did not present a sufficient basis for contempt against the respondents, including Manipur’s chief secretary.
The court advised the petitioners to seek other legal remedies.
Representing Manipur, additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati contended that no contempt had occurred, highlighting the ongoing efforts of both state and central governments to address public concerns.
Bhati stated, “The effort is to keep the pot boiling, which is very unfortunate,” and assured that the state would submit an updated status report on measures taken to safeguard the properties of displaced individuals.
The petitioners alleged that the respondents violated a Supreme Court order from September 25, which mandated the protection of properties belonging to those displaced by ethnic conflicts.
The bench scrutinized the validity of these contempt claims, particularly regarding the chief secretary’s role.
The petitioners’ counsel argued that their clients, currently residing 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 referenced the September 25 order, noting that the state had complied by filing a status report and was prepared to provide an updated one.
She reassured the court of the government’s continuous efforts to protect its citizens and their properties amidst the “uneasy calm” in Manipur.
Petitioners claimed their properties were looted in the presence of police, which Bhati dismissed as unfounded.
The bench supported Bhati’s argument, emphasizing the duty of authorities to protect properties and comply with court orders.
While expressing sympathy for the petitioners’ situation, the court maintained that there was no substantiated contempt case.
“Your properties need to be protected, but that does not mean we have to issue contempt notice to the respondents,” the bench stated, urging the petitioners to pursue appropriate legal channels if they felt wronged by the actions or inactions of the respondents.
The ethnic violence in Manipur, which began following a high court order considering the inclusion of the non-tribal Meitei community in the list of Scheduled Tribes, has resulted in over 200 deaths and numerous injuries since it erupted on May 3 last year.
The violence began with a ‘Tribal Solidarity March’ in the hill districts of Manipur opposing the Meitei community’s ST status demand.