Back
Expresses Shock Over Unnatural Deaths in Manipur Relief Camps, Seeks Report from Chief Secretary
The on Thursday expressed profound shock over a report detailing 25 unnatural deaths, including an alleged sexual assault, among internally displaced persons (IDPs) living in relief camps in Manipur. A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant directed the state’s Chief Secretary to file a comprehensive explaining the circumstances of each death, the status of , and the paid to the victims’ families. The court also ordered the to ensure registration of FIRs in all such cases and to oversee expeditious investigations.
The order came while hearing a batch of petitions concerning the investigation and trial of cases arising from the 2023 ethnic violence in Manipur, which has left thousands displaced and over 200 dead. The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, noted that the —appointed by the in to monitor relief and rehabilitation—had flagged serious lapses in addressing deaths in relief camps.
Background: The Unfinished Humanitarian Crisis
The ethnic conflict in Manipur erupted on , following a ‘Tribal Solidarity March’ against the Meitei community’s demand for Scheduled Tribe status. The violence, primarily between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities, led to widespread displacement, with thousands seeking shelter in relief camps across eight districts. The took of the situation after a video of two women being paraded naked went viral, and has since been monitoring relief efforts, investigations, and prosecution of crimes.
The court appointed the to oversee humanitarian issues, and former Maharashtra DGP Dattatray Padsalgikar to supervise the criminal probe. Despite these measures, the committee’s report dated , revealed that 640 deaths had occurred in relief camps, of which only 34 were classified as unnatural. However, post-mortems were conducted in just 20 cases, and criminal cases were registered in only 25 instances. paid to the next of kin ranged between ₹20,000 and ₹30,000—a stark contrast to the ₹5–10 lakh typically awarded in other cases.
‘Very, Very Shocking’: Court’s Reaction
During the hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant expressed dismay at the state’s failure to respond to the committee’s queries. “This is very, very shocking. One of them involves sexual assault. The information sought by the committee was very serious,” the Chief Justice remarked, addressing the state’s Advocate General and Additional Solicitor General . The court noted that the committee had sent an email on , seeking district-wise death data, but the information supplied on was incomplete. A follow-up request on remained unanswered.
The bench directed the Chief Secretary to furnish a detailed report covering post-mortem findings, preventive measures taken, and steps to ensure the safety and dignity of IDPs. “Tell your Chief Secretary not to invite any problem,” the Chief Justice warned the state’s lawyers, emphasizing that the report must include comprehensive details on medical facilities and daily necessities available in the camps.
Investigation Status: SITs and CBI Cases
The court also perused a status report filed by Dattatray Padsalgikar, who is monitoring the investigation. According to the report, 42 have been constituted across eight districts to investigate 3,020 cases. have been filed in 302 cases, in 1,583, and 1,135 cases remain under investigation. Trials have commenced in 32 cases. The is probing 31 cases, with filed in 28 and in six; three cases are still under investigation. The CBI has also filed a plea seeking cancellation of granted to some accused.
The court suggested setting up two dedicated CBI courts to handle the caseload, and asked Additional Solicitor General Bhati to convey this proposal to the state government. The bench noted that the overall recovery of weapons stood at 8,901 arms, 106,699 ammunition, and 6,390 explosives, indicating some progress in restoring order.
Legal Implications: and State Accountability
The ’s intervention underscores the constitutional obligation of the state to protect the life and dignity of every person under . The failure to conduct post-mortems in all unnatural death cases raises serious questions about the adequacy of investigations and the state’s commitment to accountability. The meagre of ₹20,000–30,000 compared to the standard ₹5–10 lakh suggests a possible violation of the and the .
Legal experts point out that the court’s direction to the MSLSA to ensure registration and expeditious investigation is a crucial step in upholding the . The setting up of special courts could expedite trials, which have been painfully slow—only six witnesses examined out of 978 in CBI cases. The case also highlights the effectiveness of court-appointed committees and monitors in overseeing complex humanitarian crises, setting a precedent for future judicial management of large-scale internal disturbances.
Impact on Legal Practice
For legal practitioners, the order reinforces the importance of timely post-mortems and thorough investigations in cases involving custodial or institutional deaths. The ’s insistence on a comprehensive from the Chief Secretary signals that senior bureaucrats will be held personally accountable for lapses in relief camp management. The involvement of the MSLSA in facilitating FIRs and legal aid to victims’ families is a reminder of the role of legal services authorities in ensuring for vulnerable populations.
The case also demonstrates the judiciary’s proactive use of its powers under to monitor executive action, particularly when are at stake. The court’s suggestion to establish special courts may encourage similar measures in other states facing backlog of criminal cases arising from communal violence.
Conclusion
The has listed the matter for further hearing, with the Chief Secretary’s expected to provide critical insights into the state’s handling of relief camp deaths. As the legal community watches closely, the case serves as a stark reminder that more than three years after the Manipur violence, the promise of safety and rehabilitation remains unfulfilled for many. The court’s firm stance is likely to compel the state to take immediate remedial action, ensuring that the dignity and rights of internally displaced persons are finally respected.
