The Evening Wrap: Two arrested in Manipur sexual violence case

The Manipur Police on July 20 arrested the second person in connection with the May 4 incident of abusing, stripping and parading two Kuki women. The two women were allegedly sexually assaulted before being set free by the mob comprising the majority community. Earlier in the day, one of the main accused was arrested. Tension mounted in the hills of Manipur after a May 4 video surfaced showing two women being paraded naked by men from the other side. Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the alleged incident has shamed 140 crore Indians, asserting that law will act with its full might and no guilty will be spared. “My heart is full of pain and anger,” he told reporters in his remarks ahead of Parliament’s Monsoon Session, amid criticism of him by Opposition parties for not speaking on the ethnic violence in the northeast State. Meanwhile, the Congress slammed the Centre after the video surfaced, with party president Mallikarjun Kharge accusing the Narendra Modi Government of turning democracy into “mobocracy”. The issue also stalled Parliament proceedings on the day, with the government saying it was ready for a discussion but the Opposition protested for suspension of all other business to take up the issue. Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha proceedings were adjourned for the day on the first day of the Monsoon session. Even outside Parliament, Opposition parties, including the Congress, the Aam Aadmi Party and the Samajwadi Party, slammed the Centre over the horrific incident in Manipur. Manipur sexual assault: SC takes suo motu cognisance of viral video, says it is “deeply disturbed” Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud summoned both Attorney General and Solicitor General, the two topmost law officers of the government in the country, on July 20 to convey that the court is “deeply disturbed” by the visuals of a woman paraded naked and sexually assaulted in strife-ridden Manipur. The Chief Justice, speaking for the court, gave the Centre and Manipur government an ultimatum to either bring the perpetrators to book or step aside for the judiciary to take action. “Using women as instruments of perpetrating violence in a charged atmosphere is simply unacceptable in a constitutional democracy,” the court emphasised in its order. The initiative of the apex court on Thursday signal an upping of the ante from its consistent stand in the past that its judicial intervention in the Manipur violence should only extend to “humanitarian issues”. It had portrayed itself as a platform to facilitate the restoration of peace in the State. The court had placed its trust in the Centre and the State to provide security for the people trapped in the violence. The Chief Justice’s remarks came immediately after the court assembled for the day’s work. Both Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta were already waiting in the front row of the courtroom. “The court is deeply disturbed by the visuals which have appeared in the media since yesterday depicting the perpetration of sexual assault and violence on women in Manipur,” the three-judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India addressed the two law officers. Taking suo motu cognisance of the video, the court said the visuals indicate “gross constitutional violations and infractions of human rights”. Chief Justice Chandrachud said it did not matter if the video was not a recent one and from May. “What matters is that this is just simply unacceptable… This is the grossest of constitutional and human rights… We are expressing our deep concern… We will give the government a little time to take action or we will take action,” Chief Justice warned. Venkataramani assured the court he would convey its concern to the government. Mehta, who has been appearing for the Manipur government in a series of separate cases related to the violence and who has been repeatedly assuring that the situation is calming down, said “we share the concern of the court”. But the Bench, despite the oral assurances, made it clear to the Centre and the State government that it wanted immediate action. “We direct both the Centre and the Manipur government to take immediate steps -- remedial, rehabilitative and preventive -- and to apprise the court of the action which has been taken before the next date of listing... the affidavits shall be filed by the Union Home Secretary and the Chief Secretary for the State of Manipur,” the court ordered. It directed the Centre and the State government to provide details of the steps taken by them to hold the perpetrators accountable and also to ensure that such incidents were not repeated in the strife in Manipur. The court posted the case next on July 28. Supreme Court refers Delhi ordinance case to Constitution Bench The Supreme Court on July 20 referred the Delhi Government’s challenge against a Central ordinance — which effectively returns power over the civil services in the national capital to the Lieutenant Governor — to a Constitution Bench. The reference to a Constitution Bench coincided with the opening of the monsoon session of the Parliament. On July 17, the Centre had urged the court to hold its hand, as the ordinance — National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023 — would be introduced in the Parliament during the monsoon session. “We will refer this to the Constitution Bench. We will upload our order in the evening,” Chief Justice Chandrachud addressed the lawyers. The three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice Chandrachud, however, did not accede to a request by the Delhi Government to take up this case before another Constitution Bench hearing, slated for August 2, on the abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir. Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, who represented the Delhi government along with Shadan Farasat, reasoned that the whole system of governance in the national capital was in a state of paralysis. “No bureaucrat is taking order and 437 consultants to the Legislative Assembly have been fired by the Lieutenant Governor (L-G)… We have to request this case to be taken up before the Article 370 one,” Mr. Singhvi urged the court. The Chief Justice, however, said it was too late to make any changes. The Article 370 case was already scheduled for August 2 and preparations and study for the hearing were already underway. Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the L-G, said that the 437 consultants were “rank illegal appointments”. He countered, “They somehow happened to be party workers.” Mr. Salve agreed with the court’s decision to refer the case to a five-judge Bench. On July 17, the CJI said a cardinal issue to be decided by the Constitution Bench would be whether the promulgation of the ordinance amounted to an amendment of the Constitution via the ordinance route. The Delhi Government has argued that the ordinance wrested away its control over civil servants without actually amending Article 239AA, which holds that the power and control over service should be vested in the elected government. Secondly, the CJI had orally observed that the effective transfer of power over the civil services amounted to nullifying Entry 41 of the State List of the Constitution, which deals with the State’s power over the “State public services and the State Public Service Commission”. The Supreme Court asked whether the impact of the ordinance was that the “State legislature cannot enact a law under Entry 41 at all?” A May 11 judgment of a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Chandrachud had limited the power of the Lieutenant Governor — considered an arm of the Central government — over bureaucrats in the capital to three specific areas: public order, police, and land. The Central government then promulgated the ordinance within eight days of the court’s verdict, which had upheld the Delhi government’s authority to make laws and administer civil services in the national capital. In a 33-page counter-affidavit to the Delhi government’s challenge, the Ministry of Home Affairs had contended that “the Parliament is competent and has overriding powers to make laws even on subjects regarding which the Legislative Assembly of Delhi would be competent to enact laws”. The MHA had accused Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his Ministers of going on a “rampage” immediately after the May 11 verdict. “The Lieutenant Governor had specially informed the Chief Minister that the judgment of the Supreme Court was sacrosanct for him… Despite this, the Chief Minister and other Ministers, in a dramatic and convoluted fashion, immediately went on a rampage by issuing orders and posting them on social media, which are in gross disregard to the rules and procedure already in place,” the Home Ministry had recounted. Ahmedabad court rejects Teesta Setalvad’s discharge plea in 2002 riots evidence fabrication case A sessions court in Ahmedabad, on July 20, rejected activist Teesta Setalvad’s discharge plea in a case pertaining to fabrication of evidence related to the post-Godhra riots. She was arrested along with former IPS officers R.B. Sreekumar and Sanjiv Bhatt in the case. Additional sessions judge A R Patel rejected Setalvad’s plea. The Gujarat government had opposed her application saying that she abused the trust of the riots victims and implicated innocent persons. On July 19, the Supreme Court had granted bail to Setalvad, setting aside Gujarat High Court’s order on July 1, directing her to surrender immediately. The Supreme Court said Ms. Setalvad would continue on bail in accordance with its order on September 2, 2022. WFI chief Brij Bhushan granted bail in sexual harassment of wrestlers case A Delhi court on July 20 granted regular bail to outgoing WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in the women wrestlers sexual harassment case. The court also allowed the bail application of suspended Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) assistant secretary Vinod Tomar. “I am granting bail on a bond of ₹25,000 each with certain conditions,” Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Harjeet Singh Jaspal said. The metropolitan court directed the accused not to leave the country without its prior permission and not offer any inducement to witnesses in the case. The Delhi Police had filed a charge sheet against the six-time MP on June 15 under sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354A (sexual harassment), 354D (stalking) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court had earlier in the day reserved its order on the bail applications of Singh and Tomar. The judge reserved the order after hearing arguments by the counsel for the accused, the prosecution as well as the complainants. During the hearing, the public prosecutor, representing Delhi Police, asked the court to try the accused as per law and impose certain conditions if relief was granted. When the court asked the prosecutor if he was opposing the bail application, he said, “I am neither opposing nor supporting.” “Application should be dealt as per law and the order passed by the court,” he told the court. The counsel, appearing for the complainants, opposed the application, saying the accused was very influential. “Bail should not be granted. If at all it is granted, strict conditions must be imposed. Witnesses have been approached from time to time, no threat though,” he told the court. The counsel for the accused told the court that he will abide by all conditions. “No threat etc. will take place. Law is very clear. He should be granted bail. I am undertaking to abide by conditions,” the defence counsel told the court. In Brief: Lok Sabha proceedings were adjourned for the day on July 20 amid noisy protests by opposition members over the situation in Manipur. As soon as the House assembled at 2 p.m., Ministers laid papers amid din. Opposition members were shouting slogans such as “Manipur Manipur” and “Manipur is burning”. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Prahlad Joshi said that the government has already made it clear that it was open to a discussion on Manipur in both Houses of Parliament. He said that Deputy leader in Lok Sabha Rajnath Singh has also given a similar assurance. Joshi said that Home Minister Amit Shah would make a detailed reply once the discussion takes place, the time of which will be decided by the Speaker. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [logo] The Evening Wrap 20 July 2023 [The Hindu logo] Welcome to the Evening Wrap newsletter, your guide to the day’s biggest stories with concise analysis from The Hindu. [[Arrow]Open in browser]( [[Mail icon]More newsletters]( Manipur sexual violence | Two arrested, CM Biren Singh assures strict action, including possible capital punishment The [Manipur Police on July 20 arrested the second person in connection with the May 4 incident]( of abusing, stripping and parading two Kuki women. The two women were allegedly sexually assaulted before being set free by the mob comprising the majority community. Earlier in the day, one of the main accused was arrested. Tension mounted in the hills of Manipur after a [May 4 video surfaced]( showing two women being paraded naked by men from the other side. [Prime Minister Narendra Modi]( said the alleged incident has shamed 140 crore Indians, asserting that law will act with its full might and no guilty will be spared. “My heart is full of pain and anger,” he told reporters in his remarks ahead of Parliament’s Monsoon Session, amid criticism of him by Opposition parties for not speaking on the ethnic violence in the northeast State. Meanwhile, the Congress slammed the Centre after the video surfaced, with party president Mallikarjun Kharge accusing the Narendra Modi Government of turning democracy into “mobocracy”. The issue also stalled Parliament proceedings on the day, with the government saying it was ready for a discussion but the Opposition protested for suspension of all other business to take up the issue. Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha proceedings were adjourned for the day on the first day of the Monsoon session. Even outside Parliament, Opposition parties, including the Congress, the Aam Aadmi Party and the Samajwadi Party, slammed the Centre over the horrific incident in Manipur. Manipur sexual assault: SC takes suo motu cognisance of viral video, says it is “deeply disturbed” Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud summoned both Attorney General and Solicitor General, the two topmost law officers of the government in the country, on July 20 to convey that the c[ourt is “deeply disturbed” by the visuals]( of a woman paraded naked and sexually assaulted in strife-ridden Manipur. The Chief Justice, speaking for the court, gave the Centre and Manipur government an ultimatum to either bring the perpetrators to book or step aside for the judiciary to take action. “Using women as instruments of perpetrating violence in a charged atmosphere is simply unacceptable in a constitutional democracy,” the court emphasised in its order. The initiative of the apex court on Thursday signal an upping of the ante from its consistent stand in the past that its judicial intervention in the Manipur violence should only extend to “humanitarian issues”. It had portrayed itself as a platform to facilitate the restoration of peace in the State. The court had placed its trust in the Centre and the State to provide security for the people trapped in the violence. The Chief Justice’s remarks came immediately after the court assembled for the day’s work. Both Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta were already waiting in the front row of the courtroom. “The court is deeply disturbed by the visuals which have appeared in the media since yesterday depicting the perpetration of sexual assault and violence on women in Manipur,” the three-judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India addressed the two law officers. Taking suo motu cognisance of the video, the court said the visuals indicate “gross constitutional violations and infractions of human rights”. Chief Justice Chandrachud said it did not matter if the video was not a recent one and from May. “What matters is that this is just simply unacceptable… This is the grossest of constitutional and human rights… We are expressing our deep concern… We will give the government a little time to take action or we will take action,” Chief Justice warned. Venkataramani assured the court he would convey its concern to the government. Mehta, who has been appearing for the Manipur government in a series of separate cases related to the violence and who has been repeatedly assuring that the situation is calming down, said “we share the concern of the court”. But the Bench, despite the oral assurances, made it clear to the Centre and the State government that it wanted immediate action. “We direct both the Centre and the Manipur government to take immediate steps -- remedial, rehabilitative and preventive -- and to apprise the court of the action which has been taken before the next date of listing... the affidavits shall be filed by the Union Home Secretary and the Chief Secretary for the State of Manipur,” the court ordered. It directed the Centre and the State government to provide details of the steps taken by them to hold the perpetrators accountable and also to ensure that such incidents were not repeated in the strife in Manipur. The court posted the case next on July 28. Supreme Court refers Delhi ordinance case to Constitution Bench [The Supreme Court on July 20 referred the Delhi Government’s challenge against a Central ordinance — which effectively returns power over the civil services in the national capital to the Lieutenant Governor — to a Constitution Bench.]( The reference to a Constitution Bench coincided with the opening of the monsoon session of the Parliament. On July 17, the Centre had urged the court to hold its hand, as the ordinance — National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023 — would be introduced in the Parliament during the monsoon session. “We will refer this to the Constitution Bench. We will upload our order in the evening,” Chief Justice Chandrachud addressed the lawyers. The three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice Chandrachud, however, did not accede to a request by the Delhi Government to take up this case before another Constitution Bench hearing, slated for August 2, on the abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir. Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, who represented the Delhi government along with Shadan Farasat, reasoned that the whole system of governance in the national capital was in a state of paralysis. “No bureaucrat is taking order and 437 consultants to the Legislative Assembly have been fired by the Lieutenant Governor (L-G)… We have to request this case to be taken up before the Article 370 one,” Mr. Singhvi urged the court. The Chief Justice, however, said it was too late to make any changes. The Article 370 case was already scheduled for August 2 and preparations and study for the hearing were already underway. Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the L-G, said that the 437 consultants were “rank illegal appointments”. He countered, “They somehow happened to be party workers.” Mr. Salve agreed with the court’s decision to refer the case to a five-judge Bench. On July 17, the CJI said a cardinal issue to be decided by the Constitution Bench would be whether the promulgation of the ordinance amounted to an amendment of the Constitution via the ordinance route. The Delhi Government has argued that the ordinance wrested away its control over civil servants without actually amending Article 239AA, which holds that the power and control over service should be vested in the elected government. Secondly, the CJI had orally observed that the effective transfer of power over the civil services amounted to nullifying Entry 41 of the State List of the Constitution, which deals with the State’s power over the “State public services and the State Public Service Commission”. The Supreme Court asked whether the impact of the ordinance was that the “State legislature cannot enact a law under Entry 41 at all?” A May 11 judgment of a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Chandrachud had limited the power of the Lieutenant Governor — considered an arm of the Central government — over bureaucrats in the capital to three specific areas: public order, police, and land. The Central government then promulgated the ordinance within eight days of the court’s verdict, which had upheld the Delhi government’s authority to make laws and administer civil services in the national capital. In a 33-page counter-affidavit to the Delhi government’s challenge, the Ministry of Home Affairs had contended that “the Parliament is competent and has overriding powers to make laws even on subjects regarding which the Legislative Assembly of Delhi would be competent to enact laws”. The MHA had accused Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his Ministers of going on a “rampage” immediately after the May 11 verdict. “The Lieutenant Governor had specially informed the Chief Minister that the judgment of the Supreme Court was sacrosanct for him… Despite this, the Chief Minister and other Ministers, in a dramatic and convoluted fashion, immediately went on a rampage by issuing orders and posting them on social media, which are in gross disregard to the rules and procedure already in place,” the Home Ministry had recounted. Ahmedabad court rejects Teesta Setalvad’s discharge plea in 2002 riots evidence fabrication case [A sessions court in Ahmedabad, on July 20, rejected activist Teesta Setalvad’s discharge plea]( in a case pertaining to fabrication of evidence related to the post-Godhra riots. She was arrested along with former IPS officers R.B. Sreekumar and Sanjiv Bhatt in the case. Additional sessions judge A R Patel rejected Setalvad’s plea. The Gujarat government had opposed her application saying that she abused the trust of the riots victims and implicated innocent persons. On July 19, the Supreme Court had granted bail to Setalvad, setting aside Gujarat High Court’s order on July 1, directing her to surrender immediately. The Supreme Court said Ms. Setalvad would continue on bail in accordance with its order on September 2, 2022. WFI chief Brij Bhushan granted bail in sexual harassment of wrestlers case [A Delhi court on July 20 granted regular bail to outgoing WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh]( in the women wrestlers sexual harassment case. The court also allowed the bail application of suspended Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) assistant secretary Vinod Tomar. “I am granting bail on a bond of ₹25,000 each with certain conditions,” Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Harjeet Singh Jaspal said. The metropolitan court directed the accused not to leave the country without its prior permission and not offer any inducement to witnesses in the case. The Delhi Police had filed a charge sheet against the six-time MP on June 15 under sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354A (sexual harassment), 354D (stalking) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court had earlier in the day reserved its order on the bail applications of Singh and Tomar. The judge reserved the order after hearing arguments by the counsel for the accused, the prosecution as well as the complainants. During the hearing, the public prosecutor, representing Delhi Police, asked the court to try the accused as per law and impose certain conditions if relief was granted. When the court asked the prosecutor if he was opposing the bail application, he said, “I am neither opposing nor supporting.” “Application should be dealt as per law and the order passed by the court,” he told the court. The counsel, appearing for the complainants, opposed the application, saying the accused was very influential. “Bail should not be granted. If at all it is granted, strict conditions must be imposed. Witnesses have been approached from time to time, no threat though,” he told the court. The counsel for the accused told the court that he will abide by all conditions. “No threat etc. will take place. Law is very clear. He should be granted bail. I am undertaking to abide by conditions,” the defence counsel told the court. In Brief: [Lok Sabha proceedings]( were adjourned for the day on July 20 amid noisy [protests by opposition members over the situation in Manipur](. As soon as the House assembled at 2 p.m., Ministers laid papers amid din. Opposition members were shouting slogans such as “Manipur Manipur” and “Manipur is burning”. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Prahlad Joshi said that the government has already made it clear that it was open to a discussion on Manipur in both Houses of Parliament. He said that Deputy leader in Lok Sabha Rajnath Singh has also given a similar assurance. Joshi said that Home Minister Amit Shah would make a detailed reply once the discussion takes place, the time of which will be decided by the Speaker. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [Sign up for free]( Today’s Top Picks [[ISRO successfully tests Gaganyaan Service Module Propulsion System] ISRO successfully tests Gaganyaan Service Module Propulsion System]( [[Eight cheetah deaths in under a year does not present a good picture, Supreme Court tells Centre] Eight cheetah deaths in under a year does not present a good picture, Supreme Court tells Centre]( [[TikTok allows Europe to access research software, with eye on E.U. online content rules] TikTok allows Europe to access research software, with eye on E.U. online content rules]( [[Building a loyal culture | Work-mind Balance podcast Ep 3] Building a loyal culture | Work-mind Balance podcast Ep 3]( Copyright @ 2023, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [try here]( Manage your newsletter subscription preferences [here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](