Know Your High Courts: Manipur High Court

Historical Background

• By the Re-organization of the North-Eastern regions by the North Eastern Area (Re-organization) Act, 1971; a common High Court was established for the five North-Eastern States namely Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, Meghalaya, and Tripura and the two Union Territories namely Union Territory of Mizoram and the Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh called as the Gauhati High Court.

• The seat of the High Court is at Imphal, the capital of Manipur. The first Chief Justice was Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre. Earlier, a bench of the Gauhati High Court used to have jurisdiction over the state of Manipur.

• Manipur attained statehood on 21^st January 1972 and the Imphal Bench of the Gauhati High Court came into existence. After 20 years it was established by The President of India as the Permanent Bench of the Gauhati High Court at Imphal on 21^st January 1992.

• It was inaugurated on 14^th March 1992 by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Justice M. H. Kania as a Permanent Bench at Imphal.

• The Foundation Stone for the new building of High Court at Mantripukhri was laid by Hon’ble Shri Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, the then Hon’ble Chief Justice of India on 30^th April 2006.

Foundation

• Parliament passed a bill on 16^th May 2012 amending the North-Eastern Areas Re-Organization Act, 2012 which later received the assent of the President of India.

• The High Court of Manipur came into existence on 23^rd March 2013.

• Hon’ble Shri Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre was administered the oath of office as the first Chief Justice of the High Court of Manipur by His Excellency Shri Gurbachan Jagat, the Governor of Manipur at the Durbar Hall of Raj Bhavan.

• The High Court of Manipur at Imphal was formally inaugurated by Hon’ble Shri Justice Altamas Kabir, the Chief Justice of India on 25^th March 2013.

At present, the strength of Judges of the High Court of Manipur at Imphal is 5.

Present Chief Justice of Manipur High Court

• The present Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court is Justice Puligoru Venkata Sanjay Kumar.

• Justice Kumar has served as a Government Pleader in the Andhra Pradesh High Court from 2000-2003.

• He was elevated as a judge of the AP  high Court in 2008. He was made a permanent High Court Judge in 2010.

• In October 2019, he was transferred from the Telangana High Court to Punjab & Haryana High Court, although the move sparked protests among members of the bar.

LANDMARK JUDGMENTS of Manipur High Court

The Manipur High Court has been involved in making some very important judgements. The court has always been praised for protecting democracy as well as establishing the rule of law.

Anti-Defection Law

• The Manipur HC through order in July 2020 has restricted the seven defecting Congress MLAs from entering the state assembly till the pronouncement of the order by the Speaker.

The Naga People’s Movement for Human Rights & Anr. vs Union of India &Ors.

• The two cases are a fall out of Operation “Blue Bird”, 1987 praying for compensation for the destruction of properties, torture of men, women, and children and human rights violation by the Assam Rifles on grounds of counterinsurgency.

• It was decided that since the nature of the claim is multi-faceted on different heads that need to be segregated and analyzed, it requires a comprehensive assessment of the damages and calculation of quantum of punishment which may not be possible for a Judicial Officer to determine. The 28 years old cases stand disposed of.

M/s Indchemie Health Specialities Private Limited & Ors. vs Union of India & Anr.

• A petition was filed for quashing criminal proceeding pending in trial court against the petitioner accused of manufacturing, supplying, distributing pharmaceutical products which are alleged “not of standard quality” as per the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

• It was held that procedures prescribed in the Act was not followed and petitioners were deprived of the right to effective defence under the Act. The requirement of section 25(3) has been compiled by the petitioners and the department has breached the mandate of section 25(4).

=======================