Manipur Police Sent Edited Clips in Biren Singh Probe, Kuki Group Alleges Sabotage to Supreme Court

NEW DELHI – In a significant development with profound implications for evidentiary standards and the integrity of state-led investigations, the Supreme Court is now seized of a serious allegation that the Manipur Police deliberately submitted incomplete and "cut-out" audio clips for forensic analysis in a case implicating former Chief Minister N. Biren Singh in the state's 2023 ethnic violence.

The Kuki Organization for Human Rights Trust, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 702/2024 , has filed a detailed affidavit asserting that this act of "selective transmission" was designed to create an "incomplete and misleading representation of the evidence," thereby compromising the entire investigative process overseen by the Court. The organization has reiterated its demand for an independent, court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) to take over the probe, arguing that the state machinery cannot be trusted to conduct a fair inquiry.

The core of the dispute is a 48-minute, 46-second audio recording that allegedly contains a conversation pointing to the complicity of high-level state functionaries in the violence that engulfed Manipur. This recording, which first surfaced in August 2024, has become a pivotal piece of potential evidence in the Kuki group's plea for accountability.

---

A Tale of Two Forensic Reports: Discrepancy at the Forefront

The legal battle has intensified over two starkly contrasting forensic reports. The petitioner's affidavit meticulously lays out a timeline that casts serious doubt on the procedure followed by the state police.

According to the affidavit, the petitioner submitted the full 48-minute recording to the Supreme Court via a supplementary affidavit on January 22, 2025, with the expectation that the complete file would be sent for expert examination as directed by the bench. However, the Cyber Crime unit of the Manipur Police, the forwarding agency, allegedly transmitted only four short, fragmented clips—with durations of 30 seconds, 1 minute 28 seconds, 36 seconds, and 1 minute 47 seconds—to the National Forensic Science University (NFSU) in Gandhinagar.

This act, the petitioner claims, was done without their knowledge or consent. The affidavit states, “The Petitioner was neither informed nor aware of which audio clips were being forwarded for forensic examination... It was, therefore, shocking to discover later that the audio clips actually transmitted were incorrect, [and did not] represent the original recording.”

Consequently, the NFSU, in its report dated October 10, 2025, concluded that the clips it received showed "discontinuities and processing traces." Based on this fragmented evidence, it declared the files "tampered" or potentially "AI-generated" and thus scientifically unfit for voice comparison. The NFSU offered no opinion on whether the voice matched that of the former Chief Minister. The affidavit further alleges that the NFSU wrongly classified even the control voice samples of Biren Singh, sourced from original Doordarshan broadcast masters, as "processed/altered."

This finding is in direct opposition to an earlier analysis conducted by a private forensic laboratory, Truth Labs. On January 18, 2025, Truth Labs examined two pen drives submitted by the petitioner—one containing the full 48-minute recording and the other with control samples of the former CM's speeches. After conducting a battery of auditory, acoustic, spectrographic, and statistical tests, Truth Labs concluded there was a 93 percent probability that the voice in the recording matched that of N. Biren Singh.

The petitioner contends that the Truth Labs report holds "far greater scientific diligence and evidentiary value," while the NFSU's report suffers from fatal "procedural and methodological infirmities" stemming directly from the incomplete material forwarded by the Manipur Police.

Legal Arguments and the Call for an SIT

The petitioner's counsel has argued that the act of sending edited clips goes to the heart of the matter, suggesting a deliberate attempt to subvert the course of justice. The affidavit asserts, “Such selective transmission of material raises serious concern regarding the bona fides of the Respondent's conduct and its impact on the fairness of the ongoing investigation.”

The central legal argument presented to the Supreme Court is that the inconclusiveness of the NFSU report, which was based on flawed and incomplete data, should not be used as a pretext to terminate the investigation at its nascent stage. The petitioner organization argues that the material on record—including the full audio and the positive Truth Labs report—establishes a prima facie case that warrants a full-fledged criminal investigation.

The affidavit powerfully contends that the question of authenticity is no longer a matter for the Court to decide based on conflicting technical reports, but is an issue squarely within the domain of an investigating agency.

"The inconclusiveness of the forensic report cannot, by itself, be treated as a ground to stifle investigation at the threshold... a criminal case must be set in motion based on the audio recording and the Truth Lab report, so that the truth may emerge through a fair, independent, and comprehensive investigation,” the affidavit urges.

During a tense hearing, one of the judges reportedly remarked on the difficulty of relying on a tampering report when the material sent for analysis was itself incomplete, signaling the bench's concern over the procedural discrepancies.

Broader Implications for Digital Evidence and State Accountability

This case highlights the growing challenges courts face in adjudicating matters involving digital evidence, where authenticity, chain of custody, and the potential for manipulation are paramount. The starkly different outcomes from two forensic labs underscore the critical importance of the integrity of the material submitted for examination.

For legal practitioners, this case serves as a crucial precedent on how to challenge the conduct of state agencies in the handling of evidence. The petitioner's strategy of filing a detailed affidavit exposing the procedural lapses provides a blueprint for holding investigating bodies accountable before the highest court.

The Supreme Court has reserved its directions in the matter. The final decision will not only determine the future of the probe into the former Chief Minister's alleged role but will also set a significant precedent on the court's power to intervene when there are credible allegations that an investigation is being compromised from within. The bench has indicated that its forthcoming order will focus on the singular question of whether, given the circumstances, a court-monitored SIT probe is warranted at this stage.