Transgender activist Malem Thongam's plea before the Supreme Court of India faced a setback as the court declined to entertain her petition. The petition sought to quash an FIR filed against her for undertaking a hunger strike against ethnic clashes in Manipur. The bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra, directed Thongam to seek redress through the Manipur High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Thongam's activism gained national attention when she initiated a hunger strike on February 22 at the University of Delhi, highlighting the strife in Manipur. Upon returning to Manipur, she continued her protest at the Kangla Western Gate in Imphal from February 27. 

However, her efforts were met with legal repercussions as Manipur Police arrested her on March 2, charging her with attempting suicide and promoting enmity between groups. She was subsequently released on March 5 but was re-arrested the next day for protesting in a public place.

The apex court's decision not to hear Thongam's petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution underscores the legal intricacies surrounding activism and protest within the country. The bench emphasized Thongam's recourse to seek legal remedies at the state high court level, refraining from extending the constitutional protection typically accorded in cases involving fundamental rights violations.

This legal saga unfolds against the backdrop of heightened tensions in Manipur, catalyzed by a High Court order in May the previous year. The order directed the state government to consider including the non-tribal Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribes list, sparking widespread ethnic violence in the state. Since then, the conflict has escalated, resulting in over 170 deaths and hundreds of injuries, underscoring the urgent need for dialogue and resolution in the region.