Manipur Violence| Supreme Court Proposes Special Courts For Day-to-Day Trials; Directs Time-Bound Supply Of Chargesheets To Victims

The Supreme Court tentatively proposed constituting Special Courts—in concurrence with the State of Manipur and the High Courts of Manipur and Gauhati—to conduct trials on a day-to-day basis in a batch of petitions relating to the ongoing investigations and trials arising out of the ethnic violence and sexual assault incidents in Manipur.

The Bench further directed legal aid counsels and Legal Services Authorities to ensure the supply of chargesheets to victims' families no later than one week from being contacted, while addressing key issues concerning bail applications, missing persons, investigation hurdles, and the protection of vandalized properties.

Previously, the Court said that the ongoing trial in the 2023 Manipur ethnic violence needs to be expedited and sought a status report from authorities.

Ethnic violence in Manipur broke out on May 3, 2025, after a 'Tribal Solidarity March' was organised in the hill districts. The protest was held against the Meitei community's demand for Scheduled Tribe (ST) status. The violence claimed over 260 lives and left thousands of people displaced.

The Bench comprised Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana ordered, "It may be true that on account of the challenges highlighted by the CBI, they might be facing some hardship in taking the ongoing investigation to a logical conclusion. Nevertheless, we are of the view that the pending investigations must reach a logical conclusion and must be completed within a reasonable time. We tentatively propose to constitute Special Courts with the concurrence of the State of Manipur and the High Courts of Manipur and Gauhati so that the trials can be taken up on a day-to-day basis, especially in light of the inordinate delay that has already taken place in the ongoing investigations."

The Court added, "This will be possible only when the CBI as well as the SITs are able to conclude investigation and file their respective charge sheets. We, therefore, lay emphasis on both agencies to do their best, irrespective of the impediments, and complete the investigation. In this regard, we direct the State of Manipur, through its Chief Secretary and officers, to provide full cooperation and coordinate with the investigating agencies, and to see—among the challenges highlighted above—what facilities or what kind of assistance can be provided to the CBI and SITs."

During the proceedings, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenged the grant of bail to accused persons Arun Khundongbam alias Nanao and Nameirakpam Kiran Meitei. Appearing for an 18-year-old accused charged with video recording during the incident, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat pressed for bail on grounds of parity, pointing out that the primary accused had already been enlarged on bail. The Court listed the bail matters for further hearing on Monday.

Previously, the Court issued notice in the plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging the judgment passed by the Guwahati High Court granting bail to these Accused persons.

Addressing the issue of access to judicial documents, the Court considered the non-furnishing of chargesheets to the victims and their families. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati clarified that while chargesheets were being supplied to victims and their legal counsel, sensitive criminal case details could not be provided to PIL petitioners or women’s organizations. However, Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover submitted that despite previous orders dated 26 February, 24 March, and 27 May 2026, several families of deceased victims had not received copies.

In this regard the Court directed, "We direct the legal aid counsels and the Member Secretaries of Legal Services Authorities of Manipur and Guwahati to immediately contact the Office of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Manipur as well as the Office of the Chief Justice of the High Court at Guwahati for the supply of charge sheets, wherever the same have been filed and are yet to be supplied to the victims' families or their legal aid counsels. It goes without saying that the authorities will ensure the supply of such charge sheets as early as possible, but not later than one week from the date the legal aid counsel contacts them."

During the hearing, a counsel representing the International Meitei Organization raised the issue of 30 individuals who went missing from one community during the conflict, praying that these cases be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The Counsel submitted, "I want to raise the missing persons issue, my Lords. One small request, your Lordships. The problem is that, as per newspaper reports, there are 30 people who are missing from one community. It could be more if you include the victims from the other community. Now, the only request to your Lordships is that, instead of waiting for the normal investigation, why don't we refer these missing persons cases to the CBI? Because your Lordships have noted in paragraphs 9 and 10 of your Lordships' orders dated August 7, 2023, and August 25, 2023, that all those serious cases have been referred to the CBI. The problem with missing persons is that there is no death certificate, and the relatives, victims, and their legal heirs have to wait for seven years with no relief—nothing."

It was submitted that in the absence of death certificates, legal heirs faced significant hardship as they would otherwise be required to wait for seven years under the law to establish legal status.

The Court said, "I don't want to right now entertain any special query on behalf of these state/community-based organizations. The central agency, the state agency, and the legal aid agencies are working well. Let us first of all see—wherever an impediment comes where we require your assistance, we will associate you. But as of now, we don't require your assistance."

The Bench further perused status reports filed by Mr. Dattatrey, former Maharashtra DGP appointed to monitor the probe, as well as the CBI and State-constituted Special Investigation Teams (SITs).

The reports indicated that the CBI had filed chargesheets in 21 cases, while SITs investigating over 3,000 cases across eight districts had filed chargesheets in 301 cases, with trials commencing in 10 matters involving nearly 2,900 cited witnesses. The CBI outlined major operational hurdles, including witness relocation, local mistrust, language barriers, and internet suspensions affecting digital evidence collection.

The Court added in its order, "We are further informed that on 29th June 2026, an online meeting was held with the Director General of Police, Manipur, and other authorities, wherein it was stressed that action should be initiated against more than 800 identified accused persons and charge sheets must be filed in most of these cases. Senior officials were accordingly advised to expedite ongoing investigations..."

"The CBI has also highlighted the challenges being faced by it, which include: (i) owing to the volatile law and order situation, examination of witnesses has become difficult as most of them have been displaced/relocated; (ii) witnesses refrain from cooperating due to mistrust; (iii) there are language barriers coupled with the existence of numerous regional dialects that have posed a significant impediment to effective communication with local residents; (iv) the prolonged suspension of internet services has hindered the collection of digital evidence; and (v) restrictions on free movement have hampered the conduct of field investigations", the Court said.

Emphasizing that pending investigations must reach a logical conclusion within a reasonable timeframe despite these operational challenges, the Court directed the State of Manipur to extend full cooperation and assistance to the investigating agencies.

Furthermore, the Court considered submissions from counsel representing the Christian Churches Council regarding the non-compliance of orders concerning the reconstruction and protection of vandalized places of worship. While acknowledging that the Judicial Committee had prioritized housing and relief projects under government schemes, the Bench indicated that the committee should address ongoing encroachments and ensure the protection of religious properties until formal reconstruction commences.

Accordingly, the matter concerning the challenge to the bail will be heard next week, while the rest of the matters were listed for a further date.

Previous.y, the Court asked the CBI, which is probing 11 FIRs related to the 2023 Manipur ethnic violence cases, to submit a status report within two weeks.

On July 20, 2023, the Apex Court took suo-moto cognisance of the matter after a video of the assault surfaced online and was widely shared months later, triggering nationwide outrage. The violence was preceded by earlier tensions over the eviction of Kuki villagers from reserve forest land, which had led to a series of smaller agitations.

Cause Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arun Khundongbam & Ors. and other connected matters [SLP (Crl.) No. 5756/2026]