The present case appears to be one where two persons along with some others were just seized from a hut, taken to a long distance away in a truck and shot there. This type of activity cannot certainly be countenanced by the courts even in the case of disturbed areas. If the police had information that terrorists were gathering at a particular place and if they had surprised them and arrested them, the proper course for them was to deal with them according to law. ‘Administrative liquidation’ was certainly not a course open to them. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (petitioner) against Union of India (respondents) 1997 (3) SCC p.433
The Supreme Court of India made this observation 16 years ago. The Court referred to the jurisprudence when yet another petitioner, the Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families’ Association, from Manipur approached the Court seeking its intervention demanding justice for persons the association alleges have been arbitrarily executed by the state in Manipur, and in the process, to end impunity enjoyed by the state forces in that state. The sheer fact that victim-families have to form an association to seek justice, and ask their government to stop killing people, is the one of the lowest points in India’s independent history.
In (Criminal) Writ Petition 129 of 2012, the petitioner alleges that, between May 1979 and May 2012, 1528 persons were killed in extrajudicial execution in Manipur. The petitioner filed in court two lists, in which details of 51 cases are provided, which the petitioner alleges is proof to the fact that extrajudicial execution is widespread in the state.
The text of the interim order issued by the Court is available here.
Refusing to accept the counter affidavits filed by both the central government as well as the Government of Manipur, the Court constituted an independent commission to inquire the allegations levelled by the petitioner in the case. The commission has completed its inquiry and will soon submit its findings and observations in court.
A judicial remedy, in the form of an intervention from the highest court in the country, is an option available to the petitioners. However, the fact that in Manipur, such alarming number of extrajudicial executions has happened is a matter of extreme concern. That such executions, nothing less than murder of citizens by the state without trial, indicates either that Manipur is in a state of internal civil war, or that the government in the state is engaged in systematic execution of people, for which both the state as well as the union government must be made accountable.
If there is an internal armed conflict that exists in Manipur, it challenges the constitutional legitimacy of the Government of Manipur, and further fastens additional responsibility upon the Government of India, as to what it has done to address it. It also means that to a certain extent, conflicting claims of accession and secession concerning Manipur will have to be viewed from a completely different legal landscape. In such a scenario, Geneva conventions on internal armed conflicts apply, though India has not ratified Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977. On the other hand, if the extrajudicial executions, as alleged in the writ petition are those carried out by the state, both the Government of Manipur as well as the union government will have to be made accountable for this, since extrajudicial execution is a non est in Indian law.
The gravity of the question to be decided by the Supreme Court, is evident from the fact, that today, in a state in India, a group of persons had to come together to form an association in the name and style Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association. That a few Indians had to approach the highest court of the country, alleging that the state has extra-judicially executed members of their families strongly suggests that the state policies in Manipur are seriously flawed. It is worse; that the state is engaged in a capital crime over a period of 33 years, which in itself is so glaring, that it warrants the most serious investigation and immediate correction. The counter affidavit filed by the Government of Manipur in the Supreme Court, however does not reflect this seriousness by the government. The Supreme Court in its interim order refers to this.
The national media in India, often tend to ignore the entire northeast of the country in their coverage, but for a few exceptional publication houses. This is reflected in this case too. While important and often trivial incidents that happen in the rest of the country gets to the national reports, the plight of people in states like Manipur often do not find space in the print and electronic media in India. This has resulted in exceptionally gross human rights abuses committed by the state in places like Manipur left unreported, thereby diminishing the pressure such reports could have otherwise generated upon the government.
This, to a certain extent has helped perpetual enforcement of draconian legislations like the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 in states like Manipur. Such neglect by the media has also fuelled the otherwise discriminatory attitude of the so-called “mainland” India and its people against Indians living in the northeastern parts of the country.
The allegation, that the political parties and the government that are concerned about citizens of neighbouring countries entertain an exceptionally discriminatory attitude towards the people in the northeast. Even human rights organisations in the country have abandoned the people of the northeast.
It is in this context, Writ Petition 129 of 2012 pending before the Supreme Court of India is important. This is a case where a group of Indians, have accused their government, that it is engaged in arbitrarily murdering people. This case, like many others, is also a litigation of national importance.
