More than three years after ethnic violence engulfed Manipur, leaving hundreds dead, thousands displaced and entire communities fractured, the Supreme Court of India has indicated that the criminal justice process must now move beyond prolonged investigation towards meaningful adjudication. During the hearing of a batch of petitions concerning the 2023 Manipur violence, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohan expressed serious concern over the slow pace of investigations and the limited progress in trials despite the enormity of the crimes under investigation. Observing that justice cannot remain indefinitely suspended merely because investigations continue for years, the Court tentatively proposed the constitution of special courts to conduct day-to-day trials in cases arising out of the violence. Simultaneously, it directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Special Investigation Teams (SITs) and the court-appointed monitoring mechanism to expedite all pending investigations so that prosecutions can proceed without further delay. The Court’s observations represent one of the most significant judicial interventions in the continuing oversight of the Manipur violence cases, reflecting an institutional determination that constitutional justice must now translate into effective criminal adjudication rather than remaining confined to investigative monitoring.
The proceedings revealed the extraordinary scale of the criminal investigations presently underway. Status reports placed before the Court disclosed that the CBI has filed charge sheets in 21 cases, investigations continue in 11 cases, closure reports have been accepted in three matters, while four investigations remain pending. Even more striking are the figures relating to the State SITs, which are investigating 3,020 criminal cases across eight districts. Despite the enormity of the investigative exercise, charge sheets have so far been filed only in 301 cases, and trials have commenced in merely ten cases. The reports further indicate that approximately 2,924 witnesses are expected to testify across these prosecutions. These statistics vividly demonstrate the challenge confronting the criminal justice system—investigations have progressed, but the transition from investigation to trial remains painfully slow, thereby delaying justice for victims as well as legal certainty for the accused.
During the hearing, the CBI candidly informed the Court that it has encountered exceptional difficulties in completing investigations. According to the agency, witnesses have been displaced from their homes, many have relocated to different States, distrust among affected communities has made cooperation difficult, language barriers have complicated witness examination, and prolonged disruption of internet services during the violence significantly affected the collection and preservation of digital evidence. These practical challenges are not uncommon in conflict-related prosecutions, particularly where crimes occur amidst widespread communal violence. The Court acknowledged that the investigating agencies were functioning under unusually difficult circumstances. Nevertheless, it emphasised that practical obstacles cannot justify indefinite investigative delays, observing that pending investigations must be completed within a reasonable time if the constitutional promise of justice is to retain its meaning.
Recognising that prolonged investigations inevitably postpone criminal trials, the Bench indicated that it is considering the establishment of special courts, in consultation with the State of Manipur, the High Court of Manipur and the Gauhati High Court, for conducting day-to-day hearings in violence-related cases. To facilitate this exercise, the Court directed the Additional Solicitor General to collate comprehensive information regarding completed investigations, pending investigations and filed charge sheets so that the judiciary can determine the precise number of special courts required. This administrative exercise may appear procedural, but it reflects a deeper constitutional concern: justice delayed on such a massive scale risks undermining both public confidence in the rule of law and the credibility of institutional responses to communal violence.
The proposal assumes significance because it reflects an evolution in the Supreme Court’s approach to mass-violence litigation. In the immediate aftermath of communal or ethnic conflict, constitutional courts generally focus upon preserving evidence, ensuring independent investigation and protecting victims and witnesses. However, once investigations substantially progress, the constitutional imperative shifts towards speedy and effective adjudication. Criminal prosecutions that remain pending for years weaken deterrence, erode witness memory, increase the possibility of intimidation and prolong uncertainty for both victims and accused persons. By proposing special courts, the Supreme Court appears to be acknowledging that accountability requires not merely registration of FIRs or filing of charge sheets, but timely judicial determination through fair trials.
The constitutional foundation of the Court’s intervention lies principally in Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Over several decades, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted Article 21 to include the right to a speedy investigation and speedy trial. Although this principle is frequently invoked by accused persons challenging prolonged incarceration, it equally protects victims whose constitutional entitlement to justice is frustrated by systemic delay. Justice under Article 21 is therefore bilateral it safeguards both the liberty of the accused and the legitimate expectation of victims that criminal accountability will not be indefinitely postponed. The present proceedings reinforce that constitutional balance by emphasising expeditious investigations alongside structured judicial trials.
The proposal also reflects an important development in the jurisprudence relating to special courts. Indian law has long recognised that certain categories of offences require specialised judicial infrastructure because of their complexity, volume or public importance. Parliament has enacted special court mechanisms under statutes such as the National Investigation Agency Act, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, the Prevention of Corruption Act and various economic offences legislation. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court itself directed the establishment of additional exclusive courts for NIA and UAPA cases, stressing that day-to-day trials were essential to reduce prolonged pendency and balance the rights of victims and accused alike. The present proposal extends that institutional philosophy to one of the country’s largest conflict-related criminal investigations.
An equally significant aspect of the proceedings concerns the rights of victims within the criminal justice process. Advocate Vrinda Grover informed the Court that families of deceased victims had still not received copies of charge sheets despite earlier judicial directions. Taking serious note of this grievance, the Bench directed legal aid counsel to coordinate with the offices of the Chief Justices of the Manipur and Gauhati High Courts so that charge sheets are supplied within one week. The Court simultaneously clarified that these documents are to be furnished to victims and their legal representatives rather than public interest litigants or unrelated organisations because the records pertain to sensitive criminal proceedings. This direction reinforces the increasingly recognised principle that victims are not passive spectators in criminal prosecutions but active participants entitled to information regarding proceedings that directly concern them.
The hearing also addressed an application filed by the International Meitei Organization, which sought a CBI investigation into the disappearance of approximately 30 persons during the violence. Rather than immediately transferring the matter, the Supreme Court directed the applicants to approach the Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court, who may consider assigning the matter to an SIT or another appropriate investigative forum. This approach demonstrates judicial restraint while preserving institutional flexibility, recognising that local judicial supervision may often provide a more effective mechanism for addressing unresolved factual disputes without unnecessarily centralising every aspect of the litigation before the Supreme Court.
Another important issue placed before the Bench related to the reconstruction of religious places destroyed during the violence. Counsel appearing for Christian organisations submitted that several churches and places of worship had not yet been rebuilt and that some locations were allegedly facing encroachments. Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that the administration had understandably prioritised construction of houses for displaced families because providing shelter to those rendered homeless constituted an immediate humanitarian necessity. At the same time, the Court categorically directed that no unlawful encroachments should be permitted upon sites where lawful religious structures had previously existed. The Court allowed affected organisations to place details before the court-appointed three-member committee and extended the committee’s tenure until December to supervise these issues. These observations illustrate the Court’s attempt to balance urgent humanitarian rehabilitation with long-term protection of constitutional rights relating to religion and property.
From a criminal law perspective, the proceedings underscore that investigation alone does not constitute justice. The filing of an FIR merely initiates criminal process. Charge sheets formally place allegations before a court, but guilt or innocence can only be determined through a fair judicial trial where evidence is tested through cross-examination and adjudicated according to law. Delays at any stage—investigation, filing of charge sheets or commencement of trial—risk undermining the credibility of the criminal justice system. The Supreme Court’s proposal therefore reflects a broader jurisprudential understanding that the legitimacy of criminal law depends not merely upon prosecutorial activity but upon timely judicial determination conducted in accordance with constitutional safeguards.
The proceedings also reveal the Court’s increasingly proactive role in structural judicial administration. Rather than confining itself to adjudicating individual disputes, the Supreme Court has repeatedly intervened in recent months to recommend institutional reforms capable of addressing systemic delays. Whether directing exclusive courts for NIA prosecutions, emphasising additional NDPS courts or now proposing dedicated courts for Manipur violence cases, the Court appears to be advancing a consistent judicial philosophy that extraordinary categories of criminal litigation require specialised procedural mechanisms if constitutional guarantees of fair and speedy justice are to be realised in practice.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s observations in the Manipur violence proceedings signify more than an administrative proposal for additional courts. They represent an acknowledgement that constitutional governance cannot be sustained if large-scale communal violence remains trapped in prolonged investigative processes without meaningful adjudication. The proposed special courts are intended not merely to accelerate case disposal statistics but to restore confidence among victims, ensure accountability through due process and reaffirm the rule of law in one of India’s most sensitive conflict situations. Whether the proposal culminates in the formal establishment of dedicated courts will depend upon coordination between the judiciary, the State Government and the investigating agencies. Nevertheless, the constitutional message emerging from the hearing is unmistakable: justice delayed in cases of mass violence weakens both public faith in the legal system and the constitutional commitment to equal protection of law. By insisting upon expeditious investigations, structured trials and greater victim participation, the Supreme Court has taken another significant step towards ensuring that the legacy of the Manipur violence is ultimately addressed through institutions of law rather than prolonged uncertainty.
