New Delhi, Nov 8: The Supreme Court on Friday heard a petition from the Kuki Organization for Human Rights Trust, requesting a court-monitored investigation into audio clips allegedly implicating Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh in inciting ethnic violence. The petition seeks a probe to confirm the authenticity of the clips, which reportedly capture the Chief Minister admitting to fueling the violence and protecting the perpetrators.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, asked the petitioner to provide evidence of the clips’ authenticity. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the Kuki organization, argued that the clips contained “disturbing conversations,” including admissions by the CM to incite violence, permit weapon looting, and shield insurgents. He noted that the recordings had been submitted to the Justice Lamba Commission, which is investigating the Manipur violence, but claimed that no action has been taken in four months.
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the state, opposed the petition, suggesting the High Court as the appropriate venue. He argued that bringing the case directly to the Supreme Court undermines the High Court’s authority. Bhushan countered, emphasizing the significance of the case in light of ongoing ethnic violence in Manipur.
The Supreme Court requested Bhushan to present materials supporting the credibility of the clips. “We will give you an opportunity to place some material on record that could allow us to form a prima facie opinion on the credibility of the audio clips,” CJI Chandrachud stated. Bhushan proposed forensic verification but expressed concern that disclosing the source could endanger lives. The CJI suggested the information could be submitted in a sealed cover.
SG Mehta argued that the petitioner’s intent was “to keep the fire burning” and expressed doubts about the clips, comparing them to hypothetical scenarios that would lack merit under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Attorney General R Venkataramani also supported SG Mehta’s stance, stressing the need for administrative freedom to restore peace and questioning the appropriateness of court intervention. SG Mehta argued that the Court might not fully understand the situation on the ground, referring to it as an “ivory tower.” CJI Chandrachud rejected this term, asserting, “We are not living in an ivory tower.… We have a duty as Constitutional Court. We don’t appreciate any attempt to brush things under the carpet.” SG Mehta apologized, clarifying that the term was not intended in a negative sense.
The Court directed the petitioner to submit the tapes and evidence supporting their authenticity and noted SG Mehta’s objections in the proceedings.
