Supreme Court: Manipur Highway Blockades Petition Disposed

• The Supreme Court disposed of a petition by the Kuki Women Organization for Human Rights regarding Manipur highway blockades.
• The Manipur government informed the Court that National Highway-2 and other routes had been cleared, and essential supplies restored.
• The petition, filed under Article 32, sought the removal of blockades and restoration of essential services to Kuki-Zo areas.
• The blockades, which began around May 17, 2026, were triggered by violent incidents and led to severe shortages of essential commodities.
• The Court had previously urged rival groups to develop comprehensive proposals for reopening highways, warning against judicial orders that might provoke violence.

The Court had emphasized the need for both the petitioners and the state to present detailed proposals on how all blocked highways could be made functional, even suggesting the impleading of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to facilitate a lasting resolution.

The Supreme Court of India has disposed of a writ petition filed by the Kuki Women Organization for Human Rights (KWOHR) concerning the economic blockades on national highways in Manipur. The petition, which sought the removal of obstructions on National Highway-2 (NH2) and the restoration of essential services to affected Kuki-Zo areas, was deemed infructuous after the Manipur government confirmed that the blockades had been lifted.

During a hearing on September 28, 2026, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana that NH2 was open and the supply of essential commodities had been restored. The state also reported that blockades on other national and state highways were being removed. In light of these developments, the Court concluded that the petition, titled KUKI WOMEN ORGANIZATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, A WING OF KUKI ORGANIZATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS TRUST (KOHUR) Vs THE STATE OF MANIPUR, no longer required judicial intervention.

The Kuki Women Organization for Human Rights initially approached the Supreme Court with an Article 32 writ petition, seeking urgent intervention to end an economic blockade imposed on Kuki-Zo inhabited regions of Manipur’s Kangpokpi district. The organization contended that these prolonged restrictions constituted collective punishment and had precipitated a severe humanitarian crisis, leading to acute shortages of vital supplies such as food, fuel, and medicines in the affected hill districts.

The blockades, reportedly enforced by Manipur Naga civil society organizations since approximately May 17, severely disrupted key transport arteries, including National Highway-2, which connects Imphal with Dimapur. The immediate catalyst for these blockades was a series of violent incidents in May 2026, notably an ambush on May 13 in Kangpokpi district where suspected armed assailants attacked Kuki-Zo church leaders returning from a peace program, resulting in three fatalities and several injuries. Subsequently, Kuki groups initiated counter-blockades on NH-202.

This recent disposal follows earlier directives from the Supreme Court in August, where it had urged rival groups in Manipur to collaborate on a comprehensive proposal for reopening national highways that had been blocked amidst the Naga-Kuki dispute. The Court had previously underscored that these continuing blockades were detrimental to ordinary citizens and severely disrupted the flow of essential commodities.

Chief Justice Kant had cautioned against issuing sweeping judicial orders, noting that such interventions, if met with state interference, could potentially escalate violence against innocent individuals. The Court had emphasized the need for both the petitioners and the state to present detailed proposals on how all blocked highways could be made functional, even suggesting the impleading of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to facilitate a lasting resolution. This approach highlights the Court's preference for state-led resolution and dialogue in complex socio-political disputes, particularly to prevent the escalation of violence.

This development illustrates the Supreme Court's approach to Public Interest Litigations concerning socio-political disputes, favoring state-led resolution and dialogue over judicial intervention once immediate grievances are addressed, particularly to prevent escalation of violence. Lawyers should note the Court's emphasis on comprehensive proposals for resolving such blockades.

Source: Original reporting via Bar and Bench