Plea to shift Myanmar Kuki detainees from Imphal jail
In a separate memoranda addressed to Mr. Bhalla and NHRC Chairperson, Justice V. Ramasubramanian, on July 25, the rights organisation raised serious constitutional and humanitarian concerns over the continued detention of the Myanmar nationals. It highlighted the case of two of them, who have remained in jail despite completing their sentences.
The KOHUR said the detention of the Myanmar nationals was a 'grave violation' of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and a breach of international human rights conventions to which India is a signatory.
The organisation referred to earlier gubernatorial notifications that permitted the relocation of Indian Kuki under-trial prisoners from Imphal and other sensitive zones to temporary prisons in the Kuki-dominated districts, such as Churachandpur, Kangpokpi, and Tengnoupal.
The KOHUR statement, signed by its chairman, H.S. Benjamin Mate, pointed out that the Myanmar detainees share deep cultural, linguistic, and familial ties with the indigenous Kukis of Manipur. It said that denying these detainees relocation based on nationality 'constitutes discriminatory treatment' and the continued detention of individuals beyond their sentence was 'a clear instance of arbitrary incarceration and a miscarriage of justice'.
Centres for civil service exams placed outside State
Meanwhile, the Delhi and NCR unit of the Kuki Students' Organisation has objected to the decision of the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) to conduct its upcoming Mains examination in Assam's Guwahati instead of Churachandpur district in Manipur, 'widely considered a safe zone' for Kuki students.
In a letter to the Manipur Governor, the students' body said the decision was unjust and burdensome, especially for aspirants from the Kuki community who have been displaced or affected by the protracted violence in the State. It underscored the disproportionate impact such logistical decisions have on conflict-affected communities.
'If this request is not heeded, Kuki students in Delhi and across India may perceive this as an act of suppressing the educational opportunities of a particular community,' the organisation stated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
3 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Kerala govt moves SC seeking rejection of Presidential reference, calls it 'misuse of power'
"A reference under Article 143 cannot be used to overrule findings of law and fact in earlier judgments," the Kerala government stated. It further pointed out that the Union government has not filed any review or curative petition against the April 8 ruling, making it binding under Article 141. "The President and the council of ministers must act in aid of the Supreme Court under Article 144," the plea added. The state also accused the reference of misinterpreting Article 200 by falsely claiming that no timeline exists for governors to act on Bills. "The foundational issues in queries 1 to 11 have already been settled in the Tamil Nadu, Punjab, and Telangana cases," Kerala argued, urging the court to reject the reference as "misleading." The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has agreed to examine the Presidential reference and has sought responses from the Centre and all states by July 29. A five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai, will hear the matter on August 29, with the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani. The court will determine whether judicially enforceable timelines can be imposed on Governors and the President regarding pending Bills. The controversy stems from the April 8 ruling by a two-judge bench, which held that Governors must act within three months if withholding assent to a bill and within one month if a bill is re-enacted. The court had invoked Article 142 to declare Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi's inaction as "illegal" and deemed 10 pending Bills as approved. President Murmu's reference challenges this verdict, raising questions on whether Governors are bound by ministerial advice and if their discretion under Article 200 is subject to judicial review. With Kerala now accusing the reference of being a "backdoor attempt" to undo settled law, the Supreme Court's upcoming decision could have far-reaching implications on Centre-state relations and the powers of constitutional authorities. Out of 14 crucial questions, the majority and important were as follows: 1) What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? 2) Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? 3) Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable? 4) Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to the judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? 5) In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?
Hans India
6 hours ago
- Hans India
NHRC to hold a 2-day special public hearing in Hyd from today
Hyderabad: The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) will conduct a two-day special public hearing in Hyderabad on July 28 and 29 to address 109 cases of human rights violations from Telangana. NHRC Chairperson Justice V. Ramasubramanian, along with members Justice (Dr) Vidyut Ranjan Sarangi and Vijaya Bharathi Sayani, will hear the cases in the presence of the complainants and relevant state officials at the Marri Chenna Reddy Human Resource Centre in Jubilee Hills, starting at 10 AM on both days. A NHRC statement issued on Sunday announced that Principal Secretary Bharat Lal, Director General of Investigation R. P. Meena, Registrar for Law Joginder Singh, and other senior officials will also be present. The cases under consideration will include issues such as police misconduct, denial of benefits from various government social welfare schemes, irregularities within prisons, negligence in protecting the rights of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, rights of students in schools across the state, health concerns affecting pregnant and lactating mothers, and trafficking.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
7 hours ago
- First Post
A court order leaves India's Cuba envoy with two wives, Supreme Court hears case
In 2022, the Gauhati High Court ruled that a marriage under the Christian Marriage Act can't be dissolved by customary practices of the Kuki tribe. This decision created a complex matrimonial situation for Thongkomang Armstrong Changsan, India's ambassador to Cuba read more A view of Supreme Court of India building in New Delhi. PTI The Gauhati High Court in 2022 had ruled that a marriage conducted in a church under the Christian Marriage Act, 1872, between a man and a woman from the Kuki tribe cannot be dissolved by customary practices involving the Songpijan village committee or 'gaonburas (village elders)' in Assam's Dima Hasao district. The court stated that such a marriage can only be annulled through legal proceedings before the High Court or a district judge, as outlined in section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This decision created a complex matrimonial situation for Thongkomang Armstrong Changsan, India's ambassador to Cuba, who found himself with two wives. Before the 2022 High Court ruling affirming his 1994 church marriage to Neikhol Changsan, he had remarried another woman after a customary divorce, and he has a daughter from each marriage. Supreme Court's observation The Supreme Court, addressing Changsan's appeal, expressed no sympathy for him. After mediation attempts failed, a bench led by Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi noted on Friday (July 25) that the Gauhati High Court's judgment was legally robust. Recognising that the Indian Foreign Service officer has been married to his second wife for nearly 15 years, the court sought a resolution to this legal and matrimonial dilemma, aiming to help Neikhol rebuild her life. Arguments by first wife, IFS officer Neikhol, representing herself in court, claimed she single-handedly raised her 29-year-old daughter without her husband's involvement and accused Changsan of manipulatively estranging their daughter from her. She urged the Supreme Court to 'protect her honour and dignity,' describing how Changsan secretly dissolved their marriage through tribal elders before remarrying. In response, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, representing the ambassador, stated that he has been covering their daughter's expenses, who is now pursuing a career in Bengaluru. Changsan also noted he has provided Neikhol with a house in Delhi and pays her Rs 20,000 monthly maintenance. The Supreme Court bench remarked, 'We have absolutely no sympathy for the man. The HC judgment is in your favour, and you have suffered socially and mentally. But can you think of a way to start life afresh?' To facilitate a potential resolution, the court suggested Neikhol meet her daughter in Bengaluru to discuss future steps. It directed Changsan to arrange her flight tickets, provide accommodation near her daughter's residence, and pay an ad hoc sum of Rs 3 lakh to support the visit. Justice Kant emphasised, 'If at all there is a possibility of settlement, the daughter could have a significant role to play,' urging the ambassador to encourage his daughter to reconnect with her mother. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Kuki Inpi, the highest governing body of the Kuki tribe in Assam, clarified that Kuki customary law cannot dissolve a church-conducted Christian marriage or force a couple to reunite against their wishes, aligning with the High Court's stance.
