The Supreme Court has urged the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court to consider whether exclusive courts should be designated for cases arising out of the Manipur violence that are being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the National Investigation Agency, in a significant attempt to address the prolonged criminal-justice process surrounding the 2023 ethnic violence. The suggestion comes against the backdrop of the Court’s continuing monitoring of investigations and trials and its repeated concern that the passage of time should not become another impediment to justice for victims and witnesses. The Court’s intervention is particularly significant because the problem confronting the Manipur cases is no longer confined to investigation. The larger question now is whether the judicial system possesses sufficient institutional capacity to take these cases from investigation to trial and, ultimately, adjudication within a reasonable period.
The Supreme Court’s latest approach must be understood against the extraordinary circumstances in which these prosecutions have unfolded. The violence that erupted in Manipur in 2023 resulted in deaths, displacement and allegations of grave offences, including murder, sexual violence, arson and destruction of property. A number of cases were subsequently transferred to the CBI, while other matters remained with State Special Investigation Teams. The Court has since been monitoring different aspects of the criminal-justice response, including investigation, prosecution, protection of victims and witnesses and access to legal assistance. The suggestion of exclusive courts therefore represents a movement towards addressing the next and perhaps most consequential stage of the process: ensuring that completed investigations actually translate into effective and continuous trials.
The Court had already indicated in July that special courts could be constituted to conduct day-to-day trials in cases connected with the 2023 violence. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana expressed concern over the delay in completing pending investigations and called upon the investigating agencies to conclude their work within a reasonable time. The Court also took note of difficulties faced by victims and their families in obtaining copies of chargesheets and directed that the criminal proceedings be moved forward with greater urgency.
The present suggestion concerning exclusive CBI and NIA courts is therefore not an isolated administrative recommendation. It forms part of a larger judicial effort to prevent the Manipur cases from becoming prolonged proceedings without a foreseeable end. A criminal investigation that takes years to complete can undermine the eventual trial by weakening the availability of witnesses, affecting the preservation of evidence and prolonging the uncertainty faced by both victims and accused persons. Equally, a completed investigation is of limited value if the chargesheet remains pending for years without meaningful progress towards the examination of witnesses and final adjudication.
The scale of the problem becomes more apparent from the information placed before the Supreme Court. Reports emerging from the July proceedings indicated that investigations by State SITs had been completed in only a relatively small proportion of the approximately 3,000 cases registered in connection with the violence, while the CBI had progressed substantially in the cases transferred to it. The CBI also pointed out that examination of witnesses had become difficult because many victims and witnesses had been displaced from their homes.
That difficulty gives the proposal for exclusive courts a significance that goes beyond simply increasing the number of judges. A dedicated court dealing principally with these prosecutions can devote greater judicial time to complex matters involving multiple accused, extensive documentary and electronic evidence and large numbers of witnesses. It can also facilitate more effective case management and reduce the fragmentation that occurs when a complex criminal trial competes for hearing dates with a large number of unrelated matters.
The proposal also reflects the Supreme Court’s broader concern with the problem of special courts that are special only in name. In its recent proceedings concerning exclusive NIA and UAPA courts, the Court noted that courts designated to hear such cases were sometimes simultaneously burdened with unrelated matters. The result was that judges could not devote sufficient time to complex prosecutions involving numerous witnesses. The Court has consequently emphasised the need for genuinely exclusive courts, rather than simply assigning a specialised label to an already overburdened Sessions Court.
This principle could be particularly relevant to Manipur. If the proposed courts are to succeed, exclusivity must extend beyond the name of the forum. The judges must have sufficient time, dedicated administrative staff, effective prosecutorial assistance and appropriate infrastructure. Otherwise, the reform risks creating the appearance of expedition without addressing the actual causes of delay.
The constitutional foundation for the Court’s concern is equally important. The right to a speedy trial is an integral component of Article 21, and that right protects both the accused and the victim. For an accused person, a prolonged criminal prosecution can become a punishment in itself, particularly where incarceration continues for years before guilt is finally determined. For a victim, delay can mean repeated appearances, prolonged uncertainty and the inability to obtain a judicial determination of responsibility for the alleged offence.
The Manipur cases make this constitutional concern particularly acute because the violence itself has disrupted the ordinary functioning of communities. Victims and witnesses have been displaced, families have been separated and many people no longer live in the locations where the alleged offences occurred. The longer proceedings remain pending, the greater the logistical and evidentiary challenges become. The criminal justice system must therefore deal not merely with ordinary judicial pendency but with the consequences of a conflict that has itself disrupted access to witnesses and evidence.
The Supreme Court has already attempted to address this difficulty by insisting upon stronger legal assistance for victims and witnesses. In an earlier proceeding concerning the CBI’s challenge to bail granted to two accused persons in a case arising from the violence, the Court observed that both sides wanted the trial to be expedited and directed the CBI and other stakeholders, particularly the State Legal Services Authority, to provide legal-aid counsel familiar with the Manipuri language or relevant local dialects. The Court also directed the CBI and the concerned governments to ensure protection of victims, their families and important witnesses.
That direction reveals an important aspect of the Court’s understanding of expedition. A trial cannot become speedy merely by fixing more dates. It must also be accessible to the people whose evidence and participation are necessary for the proceedings. If a displaced victim cannot communicate effectively with counsel, if a witness feels unsafe appearing before court, or if the parties lack access to the relevant documents, simply designating an exclusive court will not solve the problem.
This is why the Court’s earlier direction concerning chargesheets is equally significant. Several victims and their families had reportedly not received copies of chargesheets filed by the CBI and State SITs. The Court subsequently directed that victims be provided the relevant documents and facilitated access to legal representation. The issue is not merely one of procedural paperwork. Knowledge of the prosecution case is fundamental to meaningful participation in criminal proceedings, particularly where victims are seeking accountability for serious offences.
The proposal for exclusive courts must therefore be accompanied by a wider victim-access framework. Victims should be able to obtain relevant documents, communicate with counsel, understand the progress of proceedings and participate without fear or unnecessary procedural obstacles. Witness protection must similarly be treated as an essential component of trial management rather than an administrative afterthought.
At the same time, the urgency surrounding the Manipur prosecutions cannot be allowed to dilute the rights of the accused. The objective of establishing exclusive courts is to ensure a speedy and fair trial, not merely a speedy conviction. The prosecution must establish its case according to the applicable standard of proof, witnesses must be examined and cross-examined in accordance with law, and the accused must receive a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves.
This distinction is crucial in cases involving allegations of mass violence. The seriousness of an allegation cannot become a substitute for proof. A judicial process that is designed to produce predetermined outcomes would itself undermine the constitutional values that the Court is attempting to protect. The appropriate response to delay is therefore not to lower evidentiary standards but to create institutional conditions in which the existing standards can be applied efficiently.
The involvement of the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court is also constitutionally significant. Judicial administration, including the allocation of judicial officers and the functioning of subordinate courts, falls substantially within the institutional domain of the High Court. The Supreme Court’s approach of urging the Chief Justice to consider exclusive courts respects this institutional framework while recognising the extraordinary nature of the cases before it.
There is also a practical reason for involving the Gauhati High Court. A substantial number of the Manipur violence trials are being conducted outside the State, including in Guwahati, because of concerns relating to the security and neutrality of proceedings. The relocation of trials, however, creates additional difficulties for victims and witnesses who remain displaced or continue to live in Manipur. The judicial system must therefore balance security considerations with accessibility.
The geographical question cannot be dismissed as a logistical detail. Justice becomes considerably more difficult to access when victims have to travel long distances, particularly when they have already lost homes, livelihoods and community support because of the violence. A genuinely victim-sensitive trial structure must therefore examine not merely where the court is located, but whether victims can practically participate in proceedings conducted there.
Technology may provide part of the answer. Video-conferencing facilities, secure remote testimony, digital access to documents and coordinated witness-management systems can reduce some of the difficulties caused by displacement. But technological solutions must be carefully designed, particularly in sensitive cases involving vulnerable witnesses. The convenience of the system cannot override the accused’s right to effective cross-examination or the witness’s right to safety and dignity.
The proposal also has implications for the relationship between investigation and trial. The Supreme Court’s repeated directions to the CBI and SITs to accelerate investigations demonstrate that the Court does not regard the trial as an isolated stage. Delayed investigation inevitably pushes the trial further into the future. Conversely, rushed investigation can result in incomplete evidence, defective chargesheets and further litigation. The constitutional objective must therefore be timely investigation of sufficient quality, followed by an equally effective prosecution.
The Court’s intervention is particularly important because the criminal justice process in cases of mass violence can become trapped in a cycle of institutional delay. Investigations may take years because of the scale of the offences; trials may then take years because of the number of accused and witnesses; and appeals may continue thereafter. Unless case management begins at an early stage, the system can spend decades processing events that have already caused enormous social harm.
Exclusive courts could help break that cycle, but only if they are accompanied by dedicated prosecution, adequate staffing and continuous monitoring of case progress. The recent Supreme Court jurisprudence concerning NIA special courts demonstrates the importance of this integrated approach. The Court has emphasised that dedicated judges must not be burdened with unrelated cases and that the States and Union must ensure the infrastructure and prosecutorial support required for specialised trials.
The NIA’s own current framework demonstrates that Manipur already has designated special courts for certain NIA matters, including courts at Churachandpur, Imphal East and Imphal West. The latest proposal should therefore be understood not simply as creating the first specialised criminal forums in the State, but potentially as creating a more focused and exclusive arrangement for the particular group of CBI and NIA prosecutions arising from the violence.
This distinction matters because designation alone does not guarantee effectiveness. The experience of specialised courts across India demonstrates that a court can be legally designated as a Special Court while continuing to experience ordinary problems of vacancies, adjournments and inadequate infrastructure. The institutional objective must therefore be to create a functioning system of specialised adjudication rather than merely a new category of court.
There is also a larger constitutional dimension to the Supreme Court’s continuing monitoring. Ordinarily, investigation is the responsibility of the police or investigating agency, prosecution is conducted by the prosecuting authorities and trial is handled by the competent court. The Supreme Court does not ordinarily supervise every stage of a criminal case. The continuing intervention in the Manipur matters reflects the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the violence and the Court’s concern that ordinary institutional processes may not be sufficient to secure timely justice.
Such monitoring, however, must remain carefully calibrated. The Supreme Court can insist upon constitutional compliance, seek progress reports and direct institutional measures where necessary, but the determination of guilt must remain with the trial court. Judicial monitoring should strengthen the independence and effectiveness of the trial process, not substitute the Supreme Court’s own assessment of evidence for that of the competent trial judge.
The Court’s insistence upon speedy trials is therefore best understood as an institutional direction rather than a direction concerning the outcome of any particular prosecution. It is about creating the conditions in which evidence can be properly tested and judicial findings can be reached within a reasonable period.
The larger concern is one of public confidence in the rule of law. In a conflict marked by deep mistrust and competing narratives, delayed criminal proceedings can create the perception that accountability is uncertain or selective. An independent and visibly fair trial process can help restore confidence by demonstrating that allegations of serious criminal conduct will ultimately be determined through evidence and law rather than political pressure, community mobilisation or public sentiment.
That confidence cannot, however, be built merely by increasing the speed of proceedings. The credibility of the process depends upon neutrality. The accused must know that the case will be decided fairly; victims must know that their allegations will be taken seriously; witnesses must know that they will be protected; and the public must know that the outcome will be based upon legally admissible evidence.
The Supreme Court’s proposal for exclusive courts therefore represents an important recognition that justice delayed in cases arising from mass violence has consequences beyond ordinary pendency statistics. Delay affects memory, evidence, witnesses, victims and public confidence. At the same time, expedition must never be confused with procedural shortcuts.
The ideal model would consequently combine exclusive judicial forums with dedicated prosecutors, effective legal aid, witness protection, technological infrastructure, translation facilities, regular case-management reviews and transparent reporting of progress. Each element addresses a different cause of delay. Together, they can create a system capable of handling the unusual complexity of the Manipur prosecutions.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s latest suggestion to the Gauhati High Court Chief Justice should be seen as another step in the Court’s attempt to move the Manipur cases from prolonged investigation towards meaningful adjudication. The creation of exclusive courts may provide the necessary institutional focus, but the success of the proposal will depend upon what happens beyond the courtroom itself. Investigations must be completed with due diligence, chargesheets must reach victims, witnesses must be protected, lawyers must be able to communicate effectively with those they represent, and trials must proceed continuously without compromising the rights of the accused.
The constitutional objective is therefore not simply speed, but speed with fairness. For victims of the Manipur violence, justice cannot remain an indefinite promise; for the accused, a serious allegation cannot become a substitute for a judicial determination of guilt. The appropriate response lies somewhere between these two imperatives: a criminal justice system that is sufficiently swift to prevent delay from defeating accountability, yet sufficiently independent and rigorous to ensure that every conviction or acquittal rests upon evidence tested according to law. The Supreme Court’s proposal for exclusive courts is potentially an important institutional step in that direction, but its real measure of success will ultimately be whether it can deliver precisely that balance
