In light of the ethnic violence persisting since May 3, 2023, the Supreme Court may exercise its powers under Article 139A to transfer and consolidate related cases currently pending before the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts.
By Victor Chongtham
Judges, as human beings, strive to eliminate non-legal considerations that might affect their reasoning and lead to biased judgments. However, the ongoing ethnic strife in Manipur has resulted in thousands of First Information Reports (FIRs) being registered across different police stations. Without a structured mechanism to consolidate these cases under the Indian Constitution, the judicial process risks becoming fragmented and inconsistent, potentially violating the fundamental right to equality under Article 14.
Legal Basis for Case Consolidation
Article 139A of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to transfer cases, ensuring uniformity in judicial proceedings. This provision has been invoked in various instances to consolidate cases for fair adjudication. The principle aligns with Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees the right to a fair trial and equality before the law.
In India, case consolidation has primarily been a Supreme Court-driven process, particularly when issues of significant legal and constitutional importance arise. The Supreme Court defines consolidation as a procedure where two or more cases are combined and treated as one. Notably, in the Sabarimala case, the Court invoked Article 139A to consolidate petitions, ruling that the ban on women’s entry into the temple amounted to gender discrimination.
Judicial Parameters for Consolidation
Jurisprudence under Article 139A has established a two-pronged test for transferring and consolidating cases:
- The cases must involve the same or substantially similar legal and factual questions.
- The questions must be of public and social importance.
In Shamita’s case, the Supreme Court introduced an additional consideration: the convenience of the involved parties. This expanded the scope of judicial discretion beyond established legal parameters. Similarly, in L.K. Venkat’s case, the Court allowed consolidation of petitions from a lower court into an ongoing Supreme Court matter.
Challenges to Impartiality and Right to Fair Trial
While judicial discretion is essential, inconsistencies in judgments can lead to concerns about impartiality. The discretionary power of judges, if exercised without objective criteria, may introduce biases, potentially infringing on the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21, which ensures the right to life, has evolved to encompass various rights, including a clean environment and protection against noise pollution. The right to a fair trial is an integral component of this fundamental right.
Case consolidation may also pose logistical challenges, such as changes in venue, causing inconvenience to the parties involved. Judges must exercise caution to maintain impartiality and avoid actions that may appear to favor one party over another. Given India’s ratification of the ICCPR, the state is obligated to uphold the principles of procedural fairness under Article 14.
International Precedents on Case Consolidation
Internationally, courts have allowed case consolidation based on the principles of sound administration of justice and judicial economy. For example, in certain cases, multiple proceedings were clubbed together due to shared interests among the involved governments. Similar considerations should guide Indian courts in consolidating cases related to the current ethnic strife.
Judicial Economy and Procedural Fairness
Although some parties in Indian courts have opposed case consolidation due to inconvenience, the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise in cases involving egregious human rights violations. Notably, in 1996 and again in 2023, the Court transferred and clubbed cases to ensure comprehensive adjudication.
An American jurist once remarked that it is better to have a bad law than a legal void. Following India’s ratification of the ICCPR, the judiciary should establish well-defined parameters for consolidation, considering factors such as:
- Similarity of legal and factual connections – Cases should share common factual and legal questions.
- Relevance of connecting factors – The cases must be interconnected in a manner that justifies their joint adjudication.
- Impact on the parties involved – The process should be designed to minimize inconvenience while ensuring justice.
In situations where multiple cases share a common factual matrix—such as mass crimes or widespread violence—the appointment of a special judge to oversee consolidated proceedings can serve the interests of justice. This approach economizes resources for victims, accused persons, prosecutors, and legal representatives while preventing redundant legal processes and contradictory judgments across different courts.
Application to the Present Crisis in Manipur
In light of the ethnic violence persisting since May 3, 2023, the Supreme Court may exercise its powers under Article 139A to transfer and consolidate related cases currently pending before the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts. Such an approach would ensure a fair and efficient legal process, upholding the principles of justice and equality for all affected parties.
(Victor Chongtham is a lawyer based in Imphal)