E-Paper
Serious matter if lawyers can’t appear before HC due to unrest: SC
the Supreme Court observed this on Tuesday while hearing pleas by two persons who claimed they were unable to engage lawyers to seek protection from arrest in separate criminal cases lodged against them
It is a serious matter if lawyers are unable to appear before the Manipur high court amid ethnic violence in the northeastern state, the Supreme Court observed on Tuesday while hearing pleas by two persons who claimed they were unable to engage lawyers to seek protection from arrest in separate criminal cases lodged against them.
“If there is substance in what the petitioners are saying, it is a serious matter if lawyers are not able to appear,” a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud said, seeking response from the state government by next week.
The court was hearing a petition filed by a retired colonel, Vijaykant Chenji, who published a book in January 2022 on the Anglo-Kuki War of 1917-19 and faced arrest in a police case filed last month, accusing him of waging war against the government and promoting enmity between different groups. The second petition was by Henminlun alias Loon Gangte, a professor, who is facing similar charges.
Gangte is President of the Delhi Network of Positive People, a network of people living with HIV/AIDS.
A lawyer who was to appear in one of the matters before the Manipur high court called senior advocate Anand Grover over phone and expressed his inability to appear, Grover told the court, representing the two persons. Even after withdrawing his name from the case, the house and office of the lawyer were ransacked. The lawyer fled for safety and took refuge in a paramilitary camp, Grover said.
The Supreme Court Bar Association last week passed a resolution, condemning the vandalism by a mob at the house and office of lawyer Soraisham Chittaranjan in Imphal after he appeared in a case for a Kuki academic, Grover said.
“Our conscience has to be first satisfied and people have to be represented in Court. Once we have the response from the state, we will pass instructions to the registrar general of the Manipur high court,” said the bench, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, allowing Grover to file an affidavit affirming these facts by September 22, the next date of hearing.
There was a “pattern” sought to be portrayed by certain persons, which the court should be aware of, said solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Manipur government. Although not aware of the facts in the present case, Mehta, who has been appearing for Manipur in a batch of petitions where the court has constituted a committee of judges to probe incidents of violence against women during the ethnic clashes, informed the bench that the high court is fully functional and lawyers can appear either physically or virtually.
“By this petition, a picture is being presented that everything is closed. Let the secretary general of the Supreme Court speak to the high court registrar general and get a report,” Mehta said. “There is something more going on in this matter.”
“This man is a retired colonel. He published a book in 2022. In the facts of this case, we find that he needs to be protected,” the bench told the law officer. “Only question is whether we should send him back to the high court. We will decide it after hearing the state.”
“I am not against this individual,” Mehta said. “This court may protect the petitioner, but there is a pattern emerging, which the court must examine.”
Issuing notice on the two petitions, the bench held, “No coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in this particular case till the next date.” The court recorded the statement of Grover stating that it is “not possible for the petitioner to engage a lawyer before the high court for filing a petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure (CrPC) to quash the FIR against him.”
“We do not want to convert our Court into a 482 court (for dealing with quashing petitions under section 482),” the court said.
In the instance of the other petitioner Henminlun, Grover told the court that he has even been denied a copy of the police case registered against him. He claimed that being from the minority community, he was unable to locate a lawyer in Imphal as all the people from his community had been ousted. Mehta objected to this statement and urged the petitioner to put this on an affidavit.
The retired colonel faces charges of waging war against the government (section 121), promoting enmity among different communities or groups (section 153A) and criminal conspiracy (section 120B), among other provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The case against him was registered on a complaint filed by an Imphal-based social organisation called The Federation of Haomee, which accused the retired army officer of distorting history through his book.
Along with the retired colonel, two academics were also named in the FIR for creating an environment against public tranquillity and peace in the state. They claimed that no Anglo-Kuki war took place during 1917-19, citing administrative records, and accused the author of the book for concocting lies to favour a particular community.
