The Manipur ethnic violence of 2023 exposed critical failures of governance at both the state and central levels. Critically examine the Supreme Court's interventions and their constitutional basis.

Q. The Manipur ethnic violence of 2023 exposed critical failures of governance at both the state and central levels. Critically examine the Supreme Court's interventions and their constitutional basis. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The violence that erupted on 3 May 2023 over the Meitei demand for Scheduled Tribe status left over 200 dead and thousands displaced [2], drawing the Supreme Court into a supervisory role that proved indispensable to victims yet remains an imperfect substitute for executive responsibility.

Governance failures that invited judicial entry - State breakdown: a partisan police response and delayed FIRs meant the state machinery could not credibly investigate itself; trials of CBI-probed cases were shifted to Guwahati to secure a fair environment [1]. - Central hesitation: the Union's delayed use of its Article 355 duty, and eventual recourse to President's Rule under Article 356, came only after prolonged drift [3].

Interventions and their constitutional basis - Article 32 writ jurisdiction: the Kuki Organisation for Human Rights Trust petition allowed a marginalised group to seek relief directly from the apex court [1]. - Article 142 (complete justice): the Court constituted the Justice Gita Mittal Committee (7 August 2023) of three retired women judges for relief, rehabilitation and restoration of homes, alongside 42 SITs for monitored investigation [2]. - Evidentiary supervision: it ordered the entire audio clip allegedly linking the former Chief Minister to the violence sent to the National Forensic Sciences University, a body of national importance under the NFSU Act, 2020 [4], for voice comparison after only select clips had earlier been examined [1].

A critical appraisal - Strengths: restored a measure of faith in the rule of law, secured documentation, compensation and shelter for the displaced, and deterred impunity at the highest political level [2]. - Limits: repeated listings without production of the full record show the Court's dependence on executive compliance; sealed-cover procedure sits uneasily with open justice; and committees cannot deliver reconciliation, policing reform or resettlement, which remain executive functions.

Judicial oversight in Manipur was a corrective, not a cure. Its real value lies in institutionalising what it improvised — time-bound SIT supervision, independent forensic scrutiny and a statutory internally-displaced-persons rehabilitation framework — so that fraternity under the Preamble is secured by elected government, with the Court as guarantor of last resort.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Supreme Court of India — Latest Orders — orders in the KOHUR petition: transfer of CBI-probed trials to Guwahati, direction to forward the entire audio clip for forensic examination 2. Prasar Bharati News Services — SC sets up three-member committee of former women HC judges on relief and rehabilitation in Manipur (7 August 2023) — Gita Mittal Committee composition and mandate, 42 SITs, casualty and displacement scale 3. PIB — Union Home Minister moves statutory resolution in Lok Sabha seeking approval of imposition of President's Rule in Manipur — central intervention under Article 356 4. India Code — The National Forensic Sciences University Act, 2020 — statutory status of NFSU as an institution of national importance