Manipur: Home of Meitei advocate vandalised for representing professor Kham Khan Suan Hausing

The home of an advocate belonging to the Meitei community was on Friday vandalised by a mob in Manipur for representing political scientist Kham Khan Suan Hausing, who belongs to the Kuki-Zo community, in a case in the High Court, Scroll has learnt.

The mob ransacked the home of the advocate, Soiraisham Chitaranjan, at 2 pm and dispersed after the police came to contain the situation.

After the attack, Chitaranjan claimed that his role had been limited to just filing documents and senior lawyer Anand Grover was handling the case, The Sangai Express reported.

The development came a day after Chitaranjan along with two other advocates named Chongtham Victor and A Priyokumar Sharma in an application filed in the Manipur High Court sought to withdraw themselves from appearing for Hausing, citing “certain personal difficulties”.

Justice A Guneshwar Sharma had accepted their request.

Hausing told Scroll on Saturday that the Meitei advocates had been threatened by the Arambai Tenggol, a radical Meitei group that has been accused of leading several attacks against the Kukis since ethnic clashes broke out in Manipur on May 3.

“So, they have withdrawn from representing me,” added Hausing, who teaches political science at the University of Hyderabad.

Victor declared that the lawyers will never take up his case in the future. “I apologise to all our people and I beg for forgiveness from everyone,” he said.

Delhi-based lawyer John Simte, who belongs to the Zo community, told Scroll that it was “extremely alarming” that the advocates were forced to withdraw from the case because of concerns about their safety and security.

“This incident is not only a sharp assault on the rights of the accused person to be defended in a court of law by an advocate of their choice, but is also a shining example of brute force being used to deny the advocates their right to practice their profession under the Indian Constitution and international standards like the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, 1990,” Simte said.

The vandalisation of the advocate’s home, according to Simte, is most importantly “emblematic of the death of the rule of law and the complete absence of a constitutional order” in Manipur.

“In addition, it should be noted that Manipur High Court Bar Association has still not publicly condemned the attack on their colleague for providing legal assistance to a Zo academic,” Simte continued. “While unfortunate, it is not surprising, given the MHCBA as intervenors in the ongoing Manipur matter before the Supreme Court have been making submissions to the effect that the entire Zo tribes are illegal immigrants and poppy cultivators etc.”

Also read:

1. ‘Forever bond’: As Manipur burnt, ordinary people stood between attacking mobs and their neighbours
2. Why Kuki groups are accusing Manipur government of stifling their freedom of speech
3. Interview: Manipur government complicit in offensive against Kukis, used radicalised Meitei groups

Case against Hausing

Hausing is accused of several offences including promoting enmity, making false declarations and outraging religious feelings, among others, under the Indian Penal Code for his remarks on the Manipur violence.

He was summoned on July 6 after a court in Imphal East district took cognisance of a complaint made against him by Manihar Moirangthem Singh, a member of the Meitei Tribes Union.

Singh had alleged that Hausing made “derogatory remarks” against “holy religious sites associated historically with the Meitei community” and tried to defame them in an interview with The Wire’s Karan Thapar on June 17.

In the interview, Hausing had called upon Manipur Chief Minister Biren Singh to resign from his post and suggested that a separate administration must be created for the Kuki community.

Hausing later approached the Supreme Court to quash the proceedings initiated against him. On August 14, a bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud ordered that no coercive action should be taken against him for two weeks.