New Delhi:The Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, on his last working day, on Friday told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the judges’ are not sitting in an ivory tower and because of this reason, they have not have not dismissed a petition in connection with Manipur violence.
The CJI made it clear that the court will not appreciate any effort to brush things under the carpet, as it has a constitutional obligation. The CJI will demit office on November 10.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, Kuki Organization for Human Rights Trust, cited a clip by a whistleblower before a three-judge bench led by CJI. Citing the clip, Bhushan said in a conversation, where other officials were there, Manipur Chief Minister appears to be admitting that he fuelled the insurgency, he was the person who allowed arms to be looted, and he has protected the people who looted the arms.
At this juncture, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Manipur, said the matter is under investigation. Bhushan questioned the investigation by the state government in the matter, and added that though the clips were submitted by the whistleblower to the Justice Lamba Commission in July, appointed by the state government, which is inquiring into Manipur violence, no action has taken place for four months.
Mehta insisted that the petitioner should have moved the High Court instead of approaching the apex court. Bhushan said it is a very special case and lordships are already dealing with Manipur violence matters, and the court had already appointed one committee.
The bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, asked Bhushan to show some material regarding the authenticity of the clips.
"We will give you an opportunity to place some material on record which will lead us to have some prima facie confidence in the credibility of your audio clips.....we are not commenting on it," CJI said. Bhushan said authenticity can be established by the forensics lab.
The bench suggested Bhushan to file an affidavit before it, indicating the source from which it came. Bhushan said the source is under a threat of life. The bench asked Bhushan to submit it in a sealed cover.
Bhushan agreed and requested the court to ask the Lamba Commission, what did they do as in July these tapes, containing the whole conversation, were submitted to it. The CJI made it clear that the court will not get into the Lamba Commission. Mehta requested the bench not to undermine the majesty of the Manipur High Court.
"Before the court can consider the submissions made on the basis of an audio clip...it is appropriate to grant the petitioner to file before this material indicating the authenticity of the clip. Counsel states that he will also file a copy of the tape in a pendrive", said the bench, in its order.
The apex court recorded Mehta's submissions that an alternate remedy, that the High Court can examine such petitions, is kept open to be considered after the material is filed by the petitioner.
After the order was passed, Mehta contended that if he were to bring a clip tomorrow claiming that advocate Prashant Bhushan was talking with senior advocate Colin Gonsalves that this is how we are getting money from "A,B,C,B…I will not do that my lords. I will not be that irresponsible".
"But suppose I am in that business and do it, would I be entitled to approach the highest court of the country," said Mehta, insisting that the competence of the Manipur High Court must be trusted to deal with such matters.
The CJI said we are not issuing notice and "we would first want to see (the nature and authenticity of the clip)". Mehta stressed that we do not know what is the position on the ground and we have a porous border, and material and information comes from abroad. The CJI said the court is recording Mehta’s objections and we will see what they will produce before the court.
Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the Centre, said the administration should be given their due for restoring peace, and added will the court in some pretext or the other interfere in the peace process. At this juncture, Mehta said, “my lords are sitting in an ivory tower…not in a pejorative sense”.
The CJI, who seemed to be irked by this remark, replied, "not in the least Mr Solicitor General. It is because we are not sitting in an ivory tower, we have not dismissed this petition…We are also aware of what is happening on the ground in Manipur. We have a duty as a constitutional court. Will also not appreciate any effort to brush things under the carpet because we have a constitutional obligation….".
Mehta said: "Please do not take it in a pejorative sense…I am sorry my lord.... but what is happening, by whom, and at whose instance, who are the machinery being used…all these factors. Obviously, no court would be aware of it, which the government is aware". The CJI said we apply yardsticks of constitutionality and legality and called the next matter on the cause list.
The apex court made these observations while hearing a petition filed by a Kuki organization seeking a court-monitored investigation into certain clips which allegedly implicated Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh for instigating ethnic violence in the state.
