New Delhi, August 1, 2023

The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, along with Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, on Monday, July 31, declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to hold one specific community responsible for the ethnic violence in Manipur. The court expressed reservations about the broad nature of the plea and its assumption that a particular community was solely liable for the violence.

The case titled "Mayanglambam Bobby Meetei v. Union Of India And Ors. Diary No. 23183-2023 PIL" was brought before the bench. The petitioner's counsel, Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, sought to establish the petitioner's credentials at the outset of the hearing. However, the CJI observed that the petition appeared to brand one group in Manipur as terrorists and raised concerns about entertaining such petitions without concrete evidence.

The court highlighted the petitioner's prayer that declared certain groups as violators of the terms of the suspension of operations pact, sought investigation into narco-terrorism in the North East, and demanded the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by a retired judge to probe recent violence by a specific community. The PIL also encompassed issues related to deforestation, drug problems, and poppy cultivation.

CJI Chandrachud questioned the applicability of Article 32, which deals with the right to constitutional remedies, to address issues like deforestation and drug problems, stating that they might not be amenable to judicial standards.

In response to the court's reservations, Senior Advocate Divan acknowledged the need for a more specific prayer and stressed that there should be an independent inquiry into the issues at hand. She argued that deforestation, drug problems, and poppy cultivation were severe problems that warranted attention.

However, in light of the court's concerns, CJI Chandrachud suggested that the petitioner withdraw the PIL and pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with the law. Following the court's advice, the PIL was withdrawn.

The Supreme Court's decision marks a cautious approach towards petitions that make broad assumptions about the culpability of specific communities and emphasizes the need for specific and well-founded prayers in PILs. The court's stance underscores the importance of evidence-based and focused petitions to address issues of public interest effectively.

Click here to read/download the order