Supreme Court grants two-week protection to Professor Kham Khan Suan Hausing from coercive action in criminal cases in Manipur
On Monday, the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Manoj Misra, and Justice JB Pardiwala passed an order granting Professor Kham Khan Suan Hausing a two-week protection from coercive action in two criminal cases against him in Manipur. The bench noted that a criminal complaint was instituted against Professor Hausing for offences under Sections 120B, 153A, 200, 290A, 295A, and 505(1) of the CrPC in the court of CJM Imphal. Along with this, an FIR was also registered against him over the allegation of fabricating evidence to enroll in electoral roll at the Imphal police station.
During the court proceedings, the Senior Advocate appearing for Professor Hausing, Anand Grover, requested the bench to provide his client similar protection as Deeksha Dwivedi, who received interim protection from arrest and was allowed to approach the High Court. An FIR was registered against Deeksha Dwivedi after she took part in a fact-finding mission. The FIR was registered by the Manipur police. In context with this, Grover claimed that “The situation in Manipur is very tense. Many professors have also faced this. Some have even fled. Instead of a civil proceeding, they have launched a criminal investigation against me”.
Following this, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared on behalf of the state (Manipur), contended that two cases were filed against the professor. One was a criminal complaint for allegedly insulting the Meitei community in his interview with ‘The Wire’. The other one was filed by a private complainant for fabricating evidence to enroll in the electoral roll. Arguing further, SA Grover stated that both complaints were related to his interview with ‘The Wire’. To which CJI told Grover that he can pray for an anticipatory bail. Grover further replied that “If I ask for anticipatory bail, I’ll have to be present in Imphal. No Kukis are there. I cannot go and be subjected to torture in Imphal”.
Hearing all the contentions, the Supreme Court ordered, “In so far as the case arising out of the FIR is concerned, it is open to the petitioner to seek favorable reliefs including anticipatory bail before the competent court. The petitioner would be at liberty to pursue remedies before the competent court under Section 438 of CrPC. In order to facilitate the petitioner in seeking access to appropriate remedies available in law, for a period of two weeks from today no coercive steps shall be taken against him. However, this direction shall not be construed as an expression of this court on the merits of the case”.
