Manipur Bar Association Protest Against Colin Gonsalves's Remarks Exposes Concerns Over Free Speech and Justice

On August 13, 2024, Moirangthem Chuba Devi, Secretary in Charge of the All Manipur Bar Association (AMBA), issued a notice calling all members of the Manipur Bar Association to participate in a sit-in protest. The demonstration was held in front of the Cheirap Court Complex in Uripok, Imphal West today. This protest is in response to an alleged inflammatory speech given by Sr. Advocate Colin Gonsalves five months earlier on International Women’s Day, 2024, at the Constitution Club of India in New Delhi, where he called for justice.

The speech, delivered at a press conference organized by the Kuki-Zo Women’s Forum and Kuki Students’ Organization in Delhi & NCR, was criticized for supposedly undermining the High Court of Manipur. In his remarks, Gonsalves questioned the effectiveness of the High Court in protecting constitutional rights and highlighted its perceived inaction amidst ongoing ethnic violence in Manipur. He criticized the court for failing to address incidents of violence near Imphal and for lacking compassion in response to the atrocities.

Gonsalves’s statements, made in the context of escalating violence and the presence of armed militants in Manipur, were seen by some as a critique of the High Court’s role and effectiveness. The speech came after disturbing videos in January 2024 showed militants with heavy weaponry, adding to concerns about escalating conflict and the impact on upcoming elections.

Excerpt from the speech of Mr. Gonsalves reads: “...The High Court in Imphal sometimes I think it is better it is closed down only. What is the use? As a High Court you are supposed to protect the Constitution, protecting the Constitution means protecting Article 21, protecting Article 21 means protecting the Right to Life. You can’t protect the Right to Life of people whose houses were burnt 1 kilometre from the Court at Imphal 2 kilometres. What is the point of keeping a High Court, just for show? Just to show that you have a justice delivery system in our country? Oh! how great democracy is, look at the number of High Courts that we have. What is the point? Did anyone show compassion? Did any Judge show compassion? Did any Judge take up a case and say I am seeing people killed, this is the newspaper with their photographs. I want an answer from the DGP. Tell me why were they killed? How were they killed? What have you done? No answer…”

The AMBA’s call for protest against Gonsalves’s speech raises concerns about the suppression of free speech. In a democratic society, free speech is vital for the exchange of ideas and criticism of authority. By protesting against Gonsalves’s remarks, AMBA may set a concerning precedent for stifling dissenting voices, potentially intimidating other activists, lawyers, and citizens who speak out against injustice.

The incident at B. Phainom on May 4, 2023, gained widespread media attention on July 19, 2023. The Supreme Court then took Suo Motu Cognizance of the case on July 20, 2023. Prior to the video’s viral spread, witness accounts had already been circulated and reported by various outlets in May 2023. The Manipur High Court had ample time to address the issue before the Supreme Court intervened, leading to public confusion over the High Court’s and AMBA’s roles in delivering justice beyond ethnic divides.

On July 3, 2024, the Supreme Court criticized the lack of medical care for an undertrial inmate in Manipur Jail just because he belongs to the Kuki community. If the Manipur High Court, supported by AMBA, had been more proactive in addressing jail conditions, the Supreme Court might not have needed to step in.

The ongoing silence of the Manipur High Court and AMBA regarding the crime and injustice in Manipur Valley raises concerns. Issues like illegal extortion, the display of assault rifles by militants, and the intimidation of civilians fall under the High Court’s jurisdiction but are not seen as acts of violence or undermining the rule of law by AMBA. Ironically, a speech calling for justice is being labeled as inciting violence and undermining the High Court, despite the evident legal and social issues at hand.

The Supreme Court’s intervention and observations about law and order in Manipur underscore concerns about the local judiciary’s effectiveness. The AMBA’s reaction to Gonsalves’s speech may be seen as an attempt to distract from these broader issues, potentially inflaming tensions within the Meitei community and undermining the reputation of Gonsalves, who is involved in significant legal cases, including representing tribal unions and victims in high-profile matters.