Manipur High Court On Meiteis: Revises Order Amid Ethnic Tensions

In a significant development, the modification of its 2023 order by the Manipur High Court on Wednesday (February 21) was announced. The order pertained to a contentious direction issued to the State government regarding the consideration of the inclusion of Meiteis in the Scheduled Tribes (ST) list.

The review petition, filed against para 17(iii) of the decision dated March 27, 2023, rendered by Acting Chief Justice M.V. Muralidharan in a petition by the Meitei Tribe Union, was heard by the Bench of Justice Golmei Gaiphulshillu.

Manipur High Court Deletes Earlier Order

The direction in question had urged the State to "consider the case of the petitioners for inclusion of the Meetei/Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribe list" on an expeditious basis. However, following a joint perusal of the procedure outlined by the Government of India for inclusion in or exclusion from the list of Scheduled Tribes, and considering the observations made by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Court concluded that the direction needed to be reviewed.

Consequently, the Court decided to withdraw the direction given at Para No. 17(iii), stating that it was against the observations made in the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. The Court ordered the deletion of Para No. 17(iii) of the judgment and order dated 27.03.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 229 of 2023.

The Review Petition was filed by petitioners from the Meitei community, who were also the original writ petitioners. They sought review because the direction was contrary to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court, which states that a judicial direction cannot be issued for the inclusion of a tribe in the ST list as it is the sole prerogative of the President.

The petitioners contended that the direction was passed due to a misconception of law as they failed to properly assist the Court during the hearing of the writ petition. They requested the modification of the direction to align it with the judgment of the Supreme Court.

It is noteworthy that the March 27 order was initially appealed before a Division Bench of the Manipur High Court and subsequently challenged before the Supreme Court by the Chairman, Hill Area Committee (HAC) of the Manipur Legislative Assembly. Upon considering the order, a Supreme Court Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud expressed strong disapproval, stating that the order was factually incorrect and against the principles laid down by the Constitution Benches of the Court on the classification of communities in the SC/ST list.

The Supreme Court, however, did not stay the March 27 order, as an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court had been filed, allowing the parties to raise their grievances in the proceedings before the Division Bench.

Following the order in the review petition, the direction stands deleted, and the order has been modified accordingly. The Counsels for the petitioners were Senior Advocate M. Hemchandra and N. Jotendro, along with Advocates Ajoy Pebam and M. Rendy, while the Counsel for the respondent was Special State Counsel M. Rarry (for Manipur government), and DSGI Kh. Samarjit (for Union of India).