In a notable turn of events, the Manipur High Court announced a modification to its 2023 order on Wednesday (February 21), altering a contentious directive issued to the State government regarding the consideration of including Meiteis in the Scheduled Tribes (ST) list.

Justice Golmei Gaiphulshillu's bench was reviewing a petition filed against paragraph 17(iii) of the decision dated March 27, 2023, made by Acting Chief Justice M.V. Muralidharan in response to a petition filed by the Meitei Tribe Union.

Significantly, the challenged directive instructed the State to "expeditiously consider the petitioners' case for the inclusion of the Meetei/Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribe list." Subsequently, this directive from the High Court triggered an ethnic conflict between the Meiteis and the tribal Kuki-Zo communities in the State.

The review petition was submitted by the Meitei community members, who were the initial petitioners in the case. They sought a review based on the argument that the directive was unconstitutional. They cited a Supreme Court Constitution Bench judgment stating that judicial directions cannot mandate the inclusion of a tribe in the Scheduled Tribe list, as this authority solely rests with the President.

"The petitioners stated in the review petition that Para No. 17(iii) of the judgment dated 27.03.2023 of this Court was passed under a misconception of law, as they failed to properly assist the Court during the hearing of the said writ petition due to a misunderstanding of both facts and law," They further submitted that the directive should be modified as it does not align with the judgment of the Supreme Court.

It is noteworthy that the March 27 order was initially appealed before a Division Bench of the Manipur High Court. However, last year, the Chairman of the Hill Area Committee (HAC) of the Manipur Legislative Assembly also approached the Supreme Court, filing an appeal against the same order.

Upon review of the order, a Supreme Court bench presided over by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud expressed strong disapproval. It was remarked that the order not only contained factual inaccuracies but also contravened the principles established by Constitution Benches of the Court regarding the classification of communities in the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) list.

The Supreme Court, however, refrained from issuing a stay on the March 27 order, considering that an appeal had been filed before the Division Bench of the High Court. The parties were given the freedom to address their concerns in the proceedings before the Division Bench. Following the order in the review petition, the directive has now been removed, and the order has been amended accordingly.

Counsels for petitioners: Senior Advocate M. Hemchandra and N. Jotendro; Advocates Ajoy Pebam and M. Rendy

Counsel for respondent: Special State Counsel M. Rarry (for Manipur government), DSGI Kh. Samarjit (for Union of India)