KOHUR has accused state agencies of submitting truncated audio tapes instead of the full recording, allegedly undermining forensic analysis ordered by the SC.
BY PC BUREAU
New Delhi, December 14, 2025: The Supreme Court of India is scheduled to take up, on December 15, a crucial hearing in the Manipur audio tapes case, placing sharp focus on a fresh affidavit filed by the Kuki Organisation for Human Rights Trust (KOHUR). The matter—Writ Petition (Civil) No. 702/2024, KOHUR vs Union of India and Another—is listed as Item No. 35 before a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe in Court No. 12, subject to orders of the day.
At the centre of tomorrow’s proceedings is an affidavit submitted by KOHUR on November 20, 2025, which alleges “shocking lapses” by the Manipur Police in handling forensic evidence related to leaked audio tapes purportedly implicating former Chief Minister N. Biren Singh in the orchestration of the ethnic violence that erupted in Manipur on May 3, 2023.
The affidavit, sworn by KOHUR chairman Benjamin Mate, documents what it describes as a “pattern of procedural failures” by state agencies—particularly the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Cyber Crime, Manipur. Despite explicit directions issued by the Supreme Court on August 25, 2025, requiring the transmission of “all relevant material,” including the complete 48-minute-46-second audio recording and admitted voice samples of Biren Singh to the National Forensic Sciences University (NFSU), Gandhinagar, the police allegedly forwarded only four truncated audio clips.
Biren Tape Bombshell: Only 4 Brief Clips Sent for Forensic Test#BirenTape #ManipurAudioLeak #ForensicControversy#KOHURPetition #SupremeCourtIndia #DemandForSIT https://t.co/pDJefXWc69
— POWER CORRIDORS (@power_corridors) November 20, 2025
These excerpts—labelled Y1 to Y4—together total less than five minutes, with individual durations of 30 seconds, 1 minute 28 seconds, 36 seconds, and 1 minute 47 seconds. KOHUR maintains that these clips were selectively extracted from the original, unbroken audio file, which had earlier been submitted in full both to the Supreme Court and to the Justice Gita Mittal Commission of Inquiry.
According to the petitioner, this selective submission fundamentally compromised the forensic examination. The affidavit traces the chain of custody across four previous filings, asserting that the complete recording—already verified by independent experts for continuity and integrity—was repeatedly sidelined. KOHUR accuses the Manipur government of placing an “incomplete and misleading record” before the court, thereby undermining the dual forensic mandate assigned to NFSU: detecting any editing or tampering, and conducting a definitive voice comparison.
READ: Delhi Slips into Public Health Emergency as Smog Engulfs Capital
At Monday’s hearing, KOHUR’s counsel is expected to seek immediate judicial intervention, including a direction for the Manipur government to explain who authorised the truncation of the audio, why the complete file was withheld from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), FSL Guwahati, and NFSU, and whether a fresh forensic examination using the unedited original should now be ordered.
While NFSU, in its November 3, 2025 report submitted in a sealed cover, concluded that the clips provided were “modified, edited, and tampered,” rendering them unsuitable for voice matching, KOHUR relies on findings by Truth Labs, an ISO-accredited independent forensic laboratory based in Bengaluru.
Truth Labs, which was provided the complete audio file along with multiple speech samples of Biren Singh, conducted auditory, acoustic, spectrographic, Chi-Square, and likelihood ratio analyses. Its report recorded a 93 per cent probability of voice match and found no evidence of unnatural edits. KOHUR argues that this disparity highlights “far greater scientific diligence” on the part of the independent laboratory, and contends that the state-linked forensic reports are products of deliberate incompleteness rather than technical limitation.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, is expected to reiterate the Centre’s position that Manipur has “returned to peace” and that reopening forensic scrutiny could risk destabilisation—an argument advanced earlier when the matter was adjourned on November 3 to December 8, before being rescheduled. However, with the Justice Mittal Commission’s inquiry into the 2023 violence continuing and scrutiny from the National Human Rights Commission intensifying, the Bench may probe deeper into issues of evidentiary integrity. Observers note that the court could also examine whether contempt jurisdiction is attracted if lapses are found to be deliberate.
Why the Hearing Matters: A Defining Moment for Justice and Accountability
The December 15 hearing goes far beyond routine procedural review. It is widely seen as a litmus test for institutional accountability in one of India’s most devastating episodes of ethnic violence, which left more than 258 people dead, displaced over 60,000, and resulted in near-total ethnic segregation that persists almost three years later.
1. Forensic Integrity and Evidentiary Accountability
At its core, the case concerns the authenticity of whistleblower evidence alleging that Biren Singh issued directives encouraging Kuki-Meitei clashes, including instructions to brand militants as “terrorists” and incite vigilante action. KOHUR’s affidavit elevates the issue from a technical dispute to a systemic indictment. If the court concludes that truncation of evidence obstructed justice, it could order a court-supervised re-examination by a neutral agency, potentially reviving Truth Labs’ findings and opening pathways for criminal investigation under IPC provisions relating to communal enmity, abetment to murder, and offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Call for a Supreme Court-Monitored SIT
KOHUR has renewed its demand for a Supreme Court-monitored Special Investigation Team, arguing that Manipur’s administrative machinery remains conflicted. The affidavit points to uninvestigated police armoury lootings, selective interventions during violence, and the Cyber Crime unit’s conduct as evidence of institutional bias. A neutral SIT, the petitioners argue, is necessary to fulfil constitutional obligations under Articles 21 and 355.
3. Political and Reconciliatory Fallout
With Biren Singh now a Lok Sabha MP and Manipur headed towards elections in 2027, any adverse judicial findings could significantly alter the state’s political landscape. Conversely, a failure to address forensic lapses risks deepening mistrust among Kuki communities, who view the violence as state-enabled. Nationally, the case tests the Centre’s federal commitments amid ongoing reconciliation efforts.
4. Judicial Legacy and Democratic Safeguards
Finally, the hearing places the Supreme Court’s role as guardian of evidentiary integrity under scrutiny. A decisive intervention—whether through SIT formation, evidence preservation orders, or contempt proceedings—could restore confidence in judicial oversight, particularly in cases involving digital evidence and politically sensitive violence.
As Manipur remains fractured along ethnic lines, Monday’s hearing represents a judicial crossroads. Whether the court affirms the primacy of truth over truncation may shape not only the future of accountability in Manipur, but broader standards for justice in conflict-related cases nationwide.
