Supreme Court Rebukes Manipur Government Over 25 Unnatural Deaths in Relief Camps, Orders Chief Secretary to File Affidavit on Investigations and Compensation

The Supreme Court on September 17 expressed shock over reports of more than 25 unnatural deaths in relief camps housing internally displaced persons in Manipur and directed the state chief secretary to file a comprehensive affidavit detailing the circumstances, investigations, and compensation measures, according to multiple outlets. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana questioned why no significant steps had been taken on information provided by the Justice Gita Mittal committee relating to deaths, including unnatural deaths and one following an alleged sexual assault. The court directed the Manipur State Legal Services Authority to file a separate status report ensuring FIRs are registered and investigated expeditiously and that the safety and dignity of displaced persons are ensured. The bench noted that different figures were provided on trials, with one account citing 33 cases and another 38, and expressed concern over the pace of investigations arising from the 2023 ethnic violence. The court also reviewed the 16th status report from former Maharashtra DGP Dattatray Padsalgikar, appointed to supervise CBI investigations into the violence. Why It Matters: The Supreme Court's intervention signals mounting judicial scrutiny of Manipur's handling of the humanitarian crisis following ethnic violence. With more than 25 deaths occurring in what are ostensibly safe refuge facilities, including one following alleged sexual assault, the ruling exposes a systematic failure of state protection for the internally displaced. The directive for FIRs, investigations, and a separate legal services authority report creates a formal accountability mechanism and timeline pressure on the state government at a moment when national attention on Manipur's prolonged instability has waned. The discrepancies in trial figures cited by the court underscore the opacity of the state's response, raising questions about whether Manipur has the