As per a report of the Bar and Bench, the internet ban was extended by the government following apprehensions that “anti-social elements might use social media extensively for transmission of images, hate speeches and hate video messages, inciting the passions of the public which might have serious repercussions for the law-and-order situation in the state”. As per media reports, a mob had attacked a camp of 1 Manipur Rifles to loot its armoury last week which had prompted security personnel to fire several rounds in the air. The next hearing for compliance of the matter has been scheduled on November 9.

Internet ban in Manipur:

Barring a few days in September, a ban on the mobile internet has remained imposed in Manipur since the beginning of ethnic clashes in the state. Since May 3, ethnic strife in the state has affected at least ten districts and resulted in a large number of deaths, violence and displacement. There are period outbreaks of violence in the state. More than 180 people have been killed since then. Broadband services, which were also banned from May 4 for around two months, were made partially available since mid-July.

A deep dive into Manipur’s incessant internet ban can be read here.

Directions of the High Court:

The bench had asked the state “to extend the services to areas” which were unaffected by violence. They had also instructed the state for extending the same services to other areas if the law-and-order situation permits. Notably, the bench also directed the state to upload the copies of all the orders issued in relation to the suspension or curbing of mobile internet data services on its official website.

The aforementioned directions of the court were issued after the Special State counsel for Manipur government submitted a copy of the order issued by the state government in the Court. During the hearing, Yoihenba Dhruva Aribam, advocate for one of the petitioners who had filed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL), had expressed optimism that the state administration will follow the high court’s orders. The lawyer had also expressed confidence in the All-Naga Students’ Association Manipur, stating that they will remove its economic blockade in protest of the extending of the internet ban in hill regions that had not been touched by the violence.

As per a report of ABPLive, the Court held that after having heard the learned counsel on behalf of the parties, the bench will be issuing a directive to the state of Manipur to open and operationalise mobile towers on a trial basis in all those District Headquarters which have not been affected by violence and thereafter, if found feasible, extend the services to other areas where the law-and-order situation, so permits.

Related:

Manipur: 10 MLAs call out the excessive use of force against the Kuki-Zo community

RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s Vijayadashami speech blows BJP’s poll bugle, extolls G-20 summit, asks if “external forces” were responsible for Manipur violence

India: Human Rights Defender Babloo Loitongbam’s house vandalised in Manipur

Manipur: Horrifying video of tribal man being burnt alive surfaces

Manipur under shutdown as tribal organisations assert bias

The post Manipur HC directs state government to allow internet in areas with no ethnic violence on a trial basis appeared first on SabrangIndia.

No development work can proceed in the Loktak Wetland Complex region without the permission of the court, reaffirmed the Manipur High Court on February 25, 2022. A Special Bench passed this order after noting that the Loktak Development Authority’s (LDA) and Wetlands International South Asia’s common ‘Integrated Management Plan for Wise Use of Loktak Lake 2020-25’ was lacking.

The court instructed, “Pending further orders, authorities shall abide by the earlier order dated July 17, 2019 passed by this Court and ensure that no development/construction works are initiated in and around the Loktak Lake without the leave of this Court.”

The order was heartily welcomed by the two petitioners from the All Loktak Lake Areas Fishers Union – Manipur (ALLAFUM) as well as Imphal’s Indigenous Perspectives and Bengaluru’s Environment Support Group. Petitioners Oinom Akashini Devi and Khoirom Kiranbala applied for a delay condonation from the court, worried that the LDA and state tourism department will proceed with Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) promoting projects sans public involvement as required per law.

A prior and informed consultation with invested parties regarding determination of activities permitted on the wetland is required under Rule 7 of the Wetland Rules. Petitioners also brought to the attention of the Court that the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) is on record stating that the Brief Document for Loktak Lake was not furnished.

“By their very nature, the projects would sound the death knell for the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of fisher, pastoral, artisanal and farming families depending directly and indirectly on this immensely productive wetland. Besides, such projects are against the concept of wise use demanded for the wetland per the Ramsar Convention and would irreversibly destroy the Loktak Wetland region,” said a joint letter written by the three environmental organisations.

Loktak lake, a Ramsar site

The Ramsar Convention is an international treaty for the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands. Loktak lake is one such Ramsar site, located on the far eastern corner of India bordering Myanmar. This lake is the largest natural freshwater lake in India and is formed with the meandering drainage of Manipur, Imphal and Nambul rivers. Over 1,500 fisherfolk live in houses built here on floating phumdis (heterogeneous mass of vegetation, soil and organic matter at various stages of decomposition that can be 40 sq.km large), sustaining their livelihoods with wooden canoes (no polluting motorboats are allowed by the community) and traditional fishing. World’s only floating protected area, Keibul Lamjao National Park is located on one such phumdi. It is a unique habitat hosting the critically endangered Sangai (Eld’s deer), Manipur’s State animal, and several other rare species.

Missing Brief document and other issues

The Court emphasised the need to comply with Rule 7 of the Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 that requires identification of several key aspects of a wetland. For the permission and regulation of activities in the wetland, all information such as its boundaries, the pre-existing rights and privileges associated must be compiled in a “Brief Document”. Based on this, authorities make a draft notification and invite public comments to create an “integrated management plan”.

The High Court stressed compliance with this provision; the only mechanism in the Rules that allows for public involvement in decision-making relating to wetland governance. However, the Court noted that this “basic requirement” was not satisfied in the Integrated Management Plan for Loktak lake.

According to the environmental rights group, allowing the tender process for any construction project on the lake attacks various fundamental rights associated with these extraordinary commons. The review petition argued that the Court would be erroneous in considering the Integrated Management Plan as a “basic requirement” without the Brief Document.

The court’s October 12 order also noted that the state government misled the Court regarding the status of funding. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta appearing for the Manipur government said that funds sanctioned for both the inland waterways and eco-tourism projects were likely to lapse if the NIT process was not allowed.

However, when review petitioners wrote to the Asian Development Bank, which supposedly sanctioned funds for the eco-tourism project, they learnt no such funds were sanctioned even as late as February 2021. The NIT for the project had been issued in November 2020, close on the heels of obtaining the permission of the Court.

In the joint letter, organisations welcomed the Court decision that gave “hope to local communities that the voice of reason”.

“This is especially in the context of the elections underway for the Manipur State Assembly, where most major parties have proposed projects that will ensure the rapid deterioration and eventual death of the biologically diverse, highly productive, amazingly beautiful, Loktak, a habitat where human settlement co-dwells with diverse wildlife,” said the letter.

Groups also urged the Wetlands International to direct its South Asia office to withdraw the report and help create space essential to initiate the process for formulation of the Brief Document. This will be in keeping with the principles of the Ramsar Convention, Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio Declaration and Agenda 21, amongst others.

Related:

The What, Where, Why and How of AFSPA

Manipur Human Rights Commission set to investigate the death of Zeliangrong Leader

Environmentalist demand withdrawal of changes to Biological Diversity Act

The post Manipur HC reaffirms stay on development projects around Loktak Lake appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Citizens Committee Manipur (CCM) on May 3, 2021 welcomed the High Court’s judgement to uphold human rights of seven Myanmar nationals, who entered India secretly to seek protection provided by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) at Delhi.

The judgement looked into the matter of journalists Pau Khan Thawn, Cing San Lun, Si Thu Aung, Niang Go Man, 10-year-old Nang Sian Mung, 9-year-old NangKhan Hau and 5-year-old Dim Sian Huai Nuam, who fled Myanmar after a military coup in February 2021 and the banning of their media and news service Mizzima.

In the judgement, the Chief Justice insisted that India is a party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) even if it is not a party to the UN Refugee Conventions.

Accordingly, it said, “The far-reaching and myriad protection afforded by Article 21 of our Constitution, as interpreted and adumbrated by our Supreme Court time and again, would indubitably encompass the right of non-refoulement.”

Non-refoulement is the principle under international law that a person fleeing persecution from his own country should not be forced to return. The aforementioned people were hiding at Moreh before they were brought to Imphal as per an April 20 High Court order.

However, after considering the case, the Court granted the seven Myanmarese persons safe passage to New Delhi to enable them to avail suitable protection provided by the UNHCR. It told the Foreigners Regional Registration Offices (FRRO) at Imphal airport to immediately provide them with temporary identification cards to enable them to travel to New Delhi, if necessary.

“The state and central governments shall facilitate their travel to New Delhi and shall not cause any obstruction,” said the order.

The complete document can be viewed below:

CCM Convener Babloo Loitongbam applauded the courage and determination of Human Rights Advocate Nandita Haksar and her husband Sebastian Hongray, who selflessly invested time, financial resources and energy to defend rights of asylum seekers.

Similarly, the CCM voiced concern about the other thousands of Myanmar nationals taking shelter in the state’s border villages without any support and protection other than the hospitality and warmth of poor villagers.

“In the last two weeks, generous citizens responded with utmost magnanimity to the appeal of the Humanitarian Sub-Committee of CCM, and this has made it possible to reach some basic needs such as food, clothing, medicine and utensils in four villages in Kamjong District, three villages in Tengnoupal District and three villages in Churachandpur District covering more than five hundred refugees. But this local private humanitarian effort is grossly inadequate to meet the growing needs on-ground,” said Loitongbam.

As such, the CCM urged the state government and the Centre to seriously consider the constitutional and human rights obligations to protect hapless persons as mentioned in the Monday order. Members further said that governments should consider giving unhindered access to the UNHCR to offer their mandated humanitarian services.

Related:

We want to serve humanity: Rohingya refugees offer help amidst Covid

Manipur HC orders safe passage for 7 Myanmarese to seek protection under UNHCR

India and the Myanmar crisis: Death of Justice, Death of Morality

Manipur HC orders safe passage of Myanmar nationals to Imphal

The post Manipur: CCM applauds HC order allowing safe passage to Myanmar refugees appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a landmark judgment, the Manipur High Court has ordered for the safe passage of seven Myanmar citizens to New Delhi in order for them to seek protection under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

Chief Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Lanusungkum Jamir were listening to a petition concerning seven Myanmarese citizens, who entered India after the military coup in February 2021. After the coup, the military junta banned Mizzima, an established Myanmarese media and news service, and arrested/detained several of its journalists.

Of the seven people, two are journalists, and one is a video-journalist with Mizzima. The other four people include one journalist’s wife and their three minor children. They fled their country fearing persecution and physical danger after the violence that broke out after the coup. They entered India and took shelter at Moreh in Tengnoupal district, Manipur.

They sought help from the petitioner (Nandita Haskar) as they feared that they would be sent back to Myanmar by the Assam Rifles, an Indian armed force, as they entered India without proper travel documents.

On March 10, the government of India had directed the authorities of the border states in the North-East of India and the Assam Rifles to check the flow of illegal migrants coming into India from Myanmar.

Court’s observation

The Manipur High Court observed firstly, “Though India’s policy on ‘refugees’ remains rather opaque, if not obscure, and asylum seekers are straightaway branded as ‘foreigners’, if not worse, certain protections are guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of our Constitution even to those who are not Indian citizens.”

It said that even a foreigner in India is entitled to protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. “It is in the context of Article 21 that the principle of ‘non-refoulement’ assumes great significance”, said the Bench. This principle forbids the country that receives asylum seekers (in this case, India) to send them back to the original country (Myanmar) if they feel that they are likely in danger of persecution based on “race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”

The High Court ruled that the seven Myanmarese citizens will certainly be in danger if they are sent back to Myanmar. It said, “The media coverage that has surfaced from within Myanmar after the military coup, even if discounted to some extent, leaves this Court in no doubt that these Myanmarese persons, given their links with the banned Mizzima Media Organization, face imminent threat to their lives and liberty if they return.”

The Bench further said, “The far-reaching and myriad protections afforded by Article 21 of our Constitution, as interpreted and adumbrated by our Supreme Court time and again, would indubitably encompass the right of non-refoulement, albeit subject to the condition that the presence of such asylum seeker or refugee is not prejudicial or adverse to the security of this country.”

Therefore, the Court was of the view that even though India may not be a signatory to the Refugee Convention of 1951, its obligations under other international declarations/covenants, read with Article 21 of our Constitution, enjoins it to respect the right of an asylum seeker to seek protection from persecution and life or liberty-threatening danger elsewhere.

Noting that Refugee Status Determination (RSD) is undertaken by the UNHCR in India for conferring such status and for consequential documentation, the High Court said, “It would be essential for these seven Myanmarese persons to first approach the UNHCR at New Delhi and only thereafter, the Union of India would be in a position to take a call as to whether they can be granted refugee status and asylum in India, as was done earlier.”

The Court directed the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) at the Imphal airport to immediately provide them with temporary identification cards to enable them to travel to New Delhi by air, if such identity proofs are necessary.

It also importantly recorded in its order that, “The State and Central Governments shall facilitate their travel to New Delhi and shall not cause any obstruction.”

The judgment may be read here: 

Related:

Coup in Myanmar: Military detains Aung San Suu Kyi and President Win Myint

Will India face the impact of US sanctions on Myanmar military companies?

The post Manipur HC orders safe passage for 7 Myanmarese to seek protection under UNHCR appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Manipur High Court has directed safe passage of 7 Myanmar nationals from Moreh area to capital city of Imphal in the interim that the case is decided. The bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Lanusungkum Jamir observed that even if India was not party to the Refugee convention, Article 21 would be violated if these Myanmar nationals are forced to return to a country where they are liable to be subjected to persecution.

Nandita Haksar, the petitioner, had brought before the court the cause of 7 Myanmar nationals, 4 adults and 3 children presently under refuge at Moreh, Tengnoupal who wish to safely reach Delhi to seek protection from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

On April 17, the Court had suo moto impleaded Central Ministries of Home Affairs, Defence, and External Affairs. Meanwhile the petitioner sought interim relief in the form of making necessary arrangements to bring the Myanmar nationals from Moreh to Imphal in terms of the March 29 order of the Manipur Home Department which made it clear that the state was taking all humanitarian steps, including taking injured Myanmar nationals to Imphal for providing them aid

However, the Assistant Solicitor General, S Suresh relied on the March 10 letter issued by Central  Ministry of Home Affairs that steps should be taken to prevent possible illegal influx from Myanmar into Indian territory and to initiate legal proceedings against illegal migrants.

The court observed that it was conscious of the fact that India is not a signatory to the Geneva Refugee Convention, 1951, or the New York Protocol of 1967 but at the same time it is party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and also the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The court held, “The principle against refoulement, i.e., the forcible return of refugees to a country where they are liable to be subjected to persecution, can prima facie be read into Article 21 of the Indian Constitution”. The court pointed out that protection afforded by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is not limited to citizens and can be availed by non-citizens also.

The court ordered that in the interim of the case being decided, the 7 Myanmar nationals be safely transported from Moreh to Imphal. The petitioner stated that she would accompany the Deputy Commissioner, Tengnoupal, to the location where these 7(seven) persons are in hiding so that they may be given safe transport to Imphal under appropriate escort and undertook that she would provide them boarding at her own home until then.

The court thus directed that state authorities arrange necessary security at the petitioner’s residence while the 7 persons are boarded there.

“Before they are brought to Imphal, the District authorities at Moreh are permitted to take these7(seven) individuals to the Senior Immigration Officer at Moreh for the purpose of noting their details and also obtaining their biographic and biometric particulars. Thereafter, they shall be brought safely under escort to Imphal and stationed at the residence of the petitioner/party-in-person under adequate security and guard till the next date of hearing,” the court directed.

The court has precluded authorities from taking any coercive action against them. The matter is posted for hearing on April 26 for the ASG to seek instruction from the Central Ministries.

Even as thousands continued to suffer in Myanmar amidst the ongoing military crackdown after the February 1, 2021 coup, India had sealed all entry points along its border with the country. On March 26, the Manipur government had issued an order that there should not be any camp to provide food and shelter to Myanmar nationals and no civil society group should not provide food and shelter to the refugees which was retracted amidst backlash and the subsequent order stated that the state government has been taking all “necessary humanitarian steps, including taking in some injured Myanmar refugees to the state capital Imphal for treatment.

The complete order may be read here:

Related:

Manipur Human Rights group resolves to help Myanmar refugees
It is not possible to grant the interim relief: SC on detained Rohingyas in J&K
Manipur: CSCHR says gov’t must protect Myanmar citizens facing persecution

The post Manipur HC orders safe passage of Myanmar nationals to Imphal appeared first on SabrangIndia.