Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court declined to issue directives to the army, upholding civilian control.
- All parties were urged to curb hate speech and maintain equilibrium in Manipur.
- Justice Chandrachud highlighted the importance of judicial objectivity and staying apart from executive actions.
- The Court emphasized that law‑and‑order responsibilities lie with the elected government, not the judiciary.
On Tuesday, July 11, hearing petitions seeking the return of the bodies of the victims of the violence in the northeastern state of Manipur, the Supreme Court observed that hate speech should be curbed in Manipur, and all parties should maintain equilibrium. The apex court stated that it will not issue any directions to the army or the paramilitary forces, which have had a civilian leadership since independence.
CJI DY Chandrachud said, ‘We request all parties to maintain a sense of equilibrium and not participate in any hate speech. As a court, we have to show a clear balance because we stand away from the contention. Once we enter the frame, we lose our objectivity. We have to stand apart.’
The apex court, which had sought suggestions to bring the situation in the violence‑torn state under control, said:
“In the last 72 years, we have not issued such directions to the Indian army. Civilian control over the army is the greatest hallmark of democracy. We cannot breach that.”
‘We are of the view that it will not be appropriate for the court to direct army and paramilitary forces. At the same time, we would impress upon the Union Government and state of Manipur to ensure arrangements to protect lives of citizens of Manipur.’, Justice Chandrachud further expressed.
The court had also said on Monday, July 10, that even though it has extensive powers, it is the job of the elected government to run the law and order.
