The PUCL report pointed out lawyers faced threats and intimidation, while Kuki litigants struggled to access justice in Imphal’s courts.
BY PC Bureau
August 25, 2025 —The widely discussed People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) report has cast a sharp spotlight on the inaction of the judiciary in making timely interventions to prevent the spread of ethnic violence in Manipur that erupted on May 3, 2023, and its failure to take effective action thereafter.
Based on extensive testimonies from community members, women’s groups, and independent experts, The Independent People’s Tribunal on the Ongoing Ethnic Conflict in Manipur has flagged both the High Court of Manipur and the Supreme Court for failing in their constitutional duty to safeguard the rule of law.
The role of the judiciary has come under sharp focus especially because one of the key triggers for the May 3, 2023 violence was the Manipur High Court directing the state government to consider the inclusion of Meiteis in the Scheduled Tribe list. Critics argue that this decision sparked deep resentment among tribal communities, laying the groundwork for the May 3 violence that soon engulfed large parts of the state.
Traditionally, constitutional courts have stepped in during breakdowns of law and order by taking suo motu cognizance of state failures. Yet, in Manipur, neither the High Court nor the Supreme Court acted until much later, the report said.
READ: Manipur Muslims urge Governor Bhalla to act against Hate narrative
The PUCL report has pointed out that Supreme Court remained largely passive until July 20, 2023, when a disturbing video of two Kuki women being paraded naked went viral, shocking the nation. By then, hundreds had been killed, thousands displaced, and the state had effectively split into two: the Meitei-majority valley and the Kuki-dominated hills.
Failure to Hold the State Accountable
The High Court of Manipur, the report said, failed in its constitutional role of holding the state government accountable. Reports suggested that armed groups roamed freely, often using police vehicles and weapons, while state authorities either looked away or were complicit. Yet, the judiciary refrained from questioning the government or demanding stronger enforcement of the law.
“People turn to the courts when law and order collapses. In Manipur, both the executive and the judiciary turned their backs,” said a senior human rights lawyer monitoring the crisis.
PUCL’s Manipur Report: Death Raged on Streets, Police Stood Silent, DC Office Gates Shut https://t.co/jA45VVZHHA #ManipurViolence #PUCLReport#PoliceInaction #JusticeForVictims #ManipurPolice #MHA #AmitShah
— POWER CORRIDORS (@power_corridors) August 24, 2025
The Barish Sharma Case
The case of Barish Sharma, former president of the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM), became emblematic of judicial leniency during the unrest.
On May 27, 2023, police raided his residence and seized several illegal weapons, including Glock pistols and a Steyr Mannlicher pistol. Sharma was arrested under the Arms Act, but within a week, he secured bail from a district court.
Four months later, Sharma was again implicated — this time in an attempted kidnapping case in October 2023. The incident, which led to a public shootout injuring five people, was linked to a personal dispute on social media. While Sharma was briefly arrested, he was later granted extended medical bail, effectively avoiding trial for months.
For many, this highlighted how armed actors with political affiliations were treated with leniency, undermining faith in the impartiality of the judiciary.
Hate Speech and Immunity
Another controversial case involved Pramot Singh, chief of the Meitei Leepun group, who was accused of making hate speeches against the Kuki community. An FIR registered in Churachandpur cited his remarks calling for the “annihilation of Kukis.”
While a local court issued a non-bailable warrant, enforcement stalled because police stations refused to cooperate. Eventually, Singh was granted interim protection by the High Court, which continues to shield him from arrest. Critics say this sends a dangerous signal that hate speech, even in times of violent conflict, can go unpunished.
Judges and Lawyers Left Vulnerable
The crisis did not spare the judiciary itself. Lawyers who took up sensitive cases reported threats, intimidation, and vandalism of their homes and offices. Some were forced to withdraw from cases after mobs targeted them.
The Manipur High Court, however, refrained from offering protection to its officers or condemning the attacks, raising questions about whether it was unwilling or unable to stand up to the dominant groups in the valley.
READ: Amid FIR Demands, PUCL Report Widens Narrative Divide in Manipur
Meanwhile, Kuki litigants found it nearly impossible to access justice. With the High Court located in Imphal — a Meitei-majority stronghold — Kukis could not safely travel for hearings. Many Meitei lawyers were unwilling to represent Kuki clients, either out of bias or fear of reprisal. The court did little to address this access-to-justice gap, eroding public faith in its impartiality.
Collapse of Faith in Rule of Law
The combined failures of the executive and the judiciary, analysts say, created a vacuum of governance in Manipur. Armed militias flourished, ordinary citizens lost faith in justice, and inter-community trust collapsed.
“The judiciary is supposed to act as a check on the executive. In Manipur, both failed simultaneously. The result was a complete breakdown of faith in the rule of law,” noted the PUCL report.
Even today, victims and displaced communities continue to express frustration over delayed hearings, poor investigations, and judicial reluctance to challenge political actors, the report said.
With peace in Manipur still fragile, the probe panel headed by former SC judge Jospeh Kurien insists that judicial accountability is crucial if faith in democratic institutions is to be restored. The Panel argues that the courts must actively demonstrate independence, ensure access to justice for all communities, and hold both the state and non-state actors accountable for the violence.
