The Supreme Court, on Friday, has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a status report in connection with multiple cases arising out of violence in Manipur, stressing the need for transparency, victim participation and effective monitoring of proceedings.

Hearing submissions from counsel representing victims’ families, the bench of Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi acknowledged concerns over delays and lack of communication. The Court has assured oversight, remarking that “We will ask the CBI to submit a status report. Then we will examine and issue directions,” the bench said.

Raising concerns about the pace of proceedings, Adv Vrinda Grover pointed out that the matter had not been listed for several months and that families were unaware of the status of investigations. “No one knows what is happening. How do I know whether my deceased daughter’s case is progressing?” Adv Vrinda Grover submitted.

Victim’s Right

On the issue of victims’ rights, the bench emphasised that “victims have a right to a copy of the charge sheet.” It further directed that the State Legal Services Authority ensure competent legal representation. “In situations like this, the victim should be provided legal aid of some quality counsel,” the Court said, adding that if local lawyers faced apprehensions due to the earlier charged atmosphere, counsel could be drawn from the Guwahati Bar.

The Court also indicated that the investigating agency must assess whether sufficient evidence had been gathered to proceed effectively. “They should immediately revisit whether they have sufficient evidence collected to bring the guilt home,” the bench remarked.

Trial Venue and Monitoring

On the issue of whether the trials presently being conducted in Guwahati pursuant to earlier directions of the Supreme Court should continue there or whether monitoring should now shift closer to Manipur in light of changed circumstances, the Bench remarked:

“Earlier, their situation was not like that. That time, this Court’s decision is perfectly fine. But now that the matters are maturing for trial, and trial might require a very, very close and deep monitoring and supervision, then probably the local judicial authorities are in a better position from that angle.”

However, the Bench clarified that it was not expressing any final view.

SG Tushar Mehta said that some of the organisations before SC are instigating people to continue violence. He further said that now situation is peaceful. People are traveling freely. It is better the issue is heard in local environment.

Taking note of the submissions, the Court indicated that if all stakeholders were agreeable, monitoring could be entrusted to the Chief Justice concerned. “Then we can entrust it to the Chief Justice… we can request to constitute even a special bench to monitor,” the Bench observed.

The Court, thus, flagged the possibility of streamlining monitoring mechanisms. Referring to the recent appointment of a new Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court, the Court observed that “an effective mechanism at the state level or regional level, in coordination with the Chief Justices, can be established” to ensure regular oversight.

While noting that trial proceedings in certain cases were already being conducted under the supervision of the Gauhati High Court, the Court left open the question of continued monitoring, observing that senior counsel may place instructions on whether day-to-day supervision should remain with the Supreme Court or be effectively coordinated at the High Court level.

The Court Denied Access to the Committee reports at this stage

On the plea seeking access to the reports of the two Court-appointed committees, the Supreme Court said it would first examine the material before deciding whether copies could be shared with the parties.

Senior Adv Colin Gonsalves submitted that 27 reports had been filed over the past year and a half, but had not been furnished to stakeholders. “If we are to proceed and update, we need copies of these 27 committee reports,” he urged, particularly with respect to rehabilitation.

The Bench, however, cautioned that the reports may contain sensitive material. “If there is an element of sensitivity… before we go beyond the walls of this Court, it will be there,” the Court observed.

When counsel requested that at least non-sensitive portions be shared, the Court responded that it would first peruse the reports and a decision on disclosure would follow after the court’s scrutiny.

The matter has been fixed for hearing on February 26, 2026.