The apex court prohibited any coercive against Professor Kham Khan Suan Hausing for two weeks.
Prof Kham Khan Suan Hausing, Head of the Department of Political Science at the University of Hyderabad. (Twitter/ Kham Khan Suan Hausing)
The Supreme Court on Monday, 14 August, prohibited any coercive action for two weeks against University of Hyderabad (UoH) Professor Kham Khan Suan Hausing in two criminal cases.
One case against Prof Hausing, Head of the Department of Political Science at UoH, was over the remarks he made during an interview on the Manipur issue to the news portal The Wire. The other one pertained to the alleged forging of documents to register himself as a voter at Chandpur in Manipur in 2005.
After recording the details of the cases against the academic, the bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, also comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, allowed Prof Hausing “some breathing space” to approach the competent court for appropriate relief.
“We are giving him some breathing space,” Justice Chandrachud said.
Prof Hausing had filed a petition, seeking an order quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against him by a Manipur court.
The apex court had, in July, provided similar relief to advocate Deeksha Dwivedi, against whom an FIR was filed in Imphal. The case pertained to her remarks at a news conference. Dwivedi was part of a fact-finding delegation of the National Federation of Indian Women that visited the violence-hit Manipur.
Prof Housing found himself in the dock after an interview with Karan Thapar for The Wire.
“The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) directed the issuance of summons to petitioner (Prof Hausing) on 6 July 2023. Thereafter, a further order has been passed on 10 July. Thereafter another complaint has been filed concerning enrolment in electoral roll. In so far as the case arising out of FIR is concerned, it would be open for the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail from the appropriate court,” the Supreme Court bench ordered.
“To facilitate the petitioner (in seeking access to the competent court), for a period of two weeks, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. This direction shall not be construed to be passed on the merits of the case,” the order said.
Earlier, Senior Advocate Anand Grover, appearing for Prof Hausing, apprised the bench of the latest position in the two cases.
“The situation in Manipur is very tense. Many professors have also faced this (situation). Some have even fled. Instead of a civil proceeding, they have launched a criminal investigation against me,” Grover submitted before the court.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench that there were two cases: One based on a complaint by a private individual, the magistrate passed a judicial order, and in another case, another private individual complained that Prof Hausing got his name included in the electoral roll using fabricated documents.
Grover said that both cases were motivated by The Wire interview.
Prof Hausing’s counsel pointed out in the court that his client would have to go to Imphal to seek anticipatory bail. “If I ask for anticipatory bail, I will have to be present in Imphal. No Kukis are there. I cannot go and be subjected to torture in Imphal,” Grover said.
Incidentally, the top court, on 17 July, had asked the competent court to allow Dwivedi the facility to appear before it through video conferencing.
Prof Hausing, Head of the Department of Political Science at UoH, approached the top court challenging the summons issued to him on a complaint filed after his interview. The other related to his name in the electoral roll in Manipur.
A Kuki, Prof Hausing, sought the quashing of the criminal proceedings against him by the Imphal court.
The criminal proceedings were initiated by the Imphal East district court in Manipur on a complaint by Manihar Moirangthem Singh, a member of the Meitei Tribes Union (MTU).
The complaint mentioned Prof Hausing as the respondent and accused him of making derogatory remarks about religious sites associated with the Meitei community, such as Koubru and Thangjing.
The complainant also alleged that Hausing made false statements that defamed the Meitei community and exacerbated communal enmity in the state.
The complainant submitted a USB drive containing the interview and a certificate from the director of the Department of Information and Public Relations (DIPR) of Manipur as evidence.
After examining the petition and the statements of the complainant and the witness, the court found prima facie evidence of offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Chief Judicial Magistrate (Imphal East) Ashem Tarunakumari Devi issued a summons to Prof Hausing, ordering him to appear before it on 28 July.
The Imphal court issued summons taking cognizance of the alleged offences under sections 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups), 295-A (acts outraging religious feelings), 505(1) (statements conducting public mischief), 298 (deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The complainant alleged that Prof Hausing made statements that defamed the Meitei community and fuelled communal enmity in Manipur. Prof Hausing, in the course of the programme, had sought the creation of a separate administration for the Kuki community.
Prof Housing said that the summons was issued to him by the Imphal court ignoring the prevailing communal tension and disturbance in Manipur.
Earlier on 28 July, a bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia declined to hear Prof Hausing’s plea stating that it was already listed for hearing on 31 July.
May 20, 2024
May 20, 2024
May 19, 2024
May 19, 2024
May 19, 2024
May 19, 2024
