New Delhi: The Supreme Court came down heavily on advocate Bansuri Swaraj during the hearing of the Manipur violence and viral video case for bringing up incidents of crime against women in West Bengal. The court expressed strong disapproval of the mention of unrelated incidents and directed the focus back to the matter at hand.

The court acknowledged that it was dealing with an "unprecedented magnitude" of violence against women in communal and sectarian strife while hearing a plea on the Manipur viral video case. Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud emphasized that what happened in Manipur cannot be justified by pointing to incidents elsewhere.

Advocate Bansuri Swaraj requested the Supreme Court bench to consider crimes against women in West Bengal along with the Manipur case. The CJI suggested that the matter could be heard later as they were currently focused on the Manipur violence case.

Despite the CJI's suggestion, Bansuri Swaraj once again intervened, sharing details of crimes against women in Bengal and Chhattisgarh. The CJI expressed frustration with the repeated intervention and questioned whether the court should protect all women or none at all.

The Supreme Court criticized the handling of the case by the police, stating that it no longer wanted the state police to investigate further, as they seemingly handed over the women to the rioting mob.

CJI DY Chandrachud proposed the possibility of establishing a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or a committee comprising former judges to monitor the situation in Manipur.

The bench is scheduled to hear a series of pleas on Manipur violence on Tuesday and questioned why the Manipur Police took 14 days to register an FIR after the incident of stripping and parading the women came to light on May 4.

Kapil Sibal represented the two women who were seen in the video and confirmed they had filed a petition in the matter.

Two women survivors of the assault opposed the CBI probe and the transfer of the trial to Assam. The Centre clarified that the decision on the trial venue is for the Supreme Court to decide, and the Centre has not selected any state.

The Supreme Court stressed that the viral video case was not an isolated incident of violence against women in the state and called for a broader mechanism to prevent such incidents and take appropriate action.

AG R Venkataramani assured the court that he would personally monitor the CBI probe. Kapil Sibal requested a court-monitored SIT instead of the CBI.

SG Tushar Mehta stated that the Centre had no objection if the Supreme Court monitors the CBI probe. Senior advocate Indira Jaising argued for a high-powered committee to visit Manipur and record statements of the survivors, with the SC deciding the future course of action based on that report. Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves pressed for an SIT comprising retired senior police officers and requested the exclusion of any cop from Manipur in the SIT. He opposed a CBI probe and called for intervenors. Advocate Vrinda Grover emphasized that lodging FIRs should not be the end of the criminal procedure and cited an incident of two Kuki women getting raped and killed in Imphal.

Grover claimed that there was targeted violence against Kuki women, to which the SG objected. The Supreme Court criticized the Manipur police for taking 14 days to register a zero FIR in the case and requested the Manipur government to provide details of FIRs filed since May 3, arrests made, and actions taken in the case by 2 pm the following day.