New Delhi, November: The Supreme Court on Thursday witnessed a tense exchange as the Kuki Organization for Human Rights Trust accused the Manipur Police of forwarding only “cut-out” snippets-barely a few seconds long-of a crucial 48-minute audio recording to the National Forensic Science University (NFSU). The group said the selective transmission “seriously compromises” the probe into former Manipur Chief Minister N. Biren Singh’s alleged role in the 2023 ethnic violence.
Their claims came through a fresh affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No. 702/2024, seeking a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT).
Background
The controversy began when a 48-minute audio conversation surfaced in August 2024, allegedly pointing to the involvement of state machinery in the Meitei-Kuki clashes. The petitioner said it submitted the full recording to the Court in January 2025, expecting it to be sent for forensic analysis.
Instead, according to the affidavit sworn by chairman Houlim Shokhapa Mate, the Manipur Police’s Cyber Crime unit forwarded only four clips-ranging from 30 seconds to under two minutes-to NFSU.
“The petitioner was never informed that only fragments had been sent,” the affidavit notes, almost hinting at betrayal.
As a result, NFSU declared the audio “tampered” and “processed,” and found it unfit for proper voice comparison-even when control samples of the former CM’s voice were original broadcast recordings.
In contrast, a private forensic lab, Truth Labs, had earlier examined two pen drives containing the full recording and concluded a 93% voice match with the former Chief Minister.
Court’s Observations
Although the bench refrained from drawing conclusions, the judges appeared concerned with the contradictory forensic paths. One of the judges remarked informally, “If incomplete material was sent, how do we expect a complete report?”
The petitioner heavily relied on this contradiction, arguing that NFSU could not verify continuity simply because it never received the full file.
“The bench observed, ‘Such discrepancies make it difficult for us to rely on the tampering report alone,’” a lawyer present in court told this reporter after the hearing.
The affidavit further points out that even the Justice Lamba Commission had once received the full recording but forwarded a shortened version to Truth Labs to protect the speaker’s identity. The petitioner says the State’s repeated handling of partial files is “not accidental.”
Decision
The Supreme Court reserved its directions but acknowledged the petitioner’s plea that the issue is now beyond the Court’s technical assessment. As the affidavit phrases it, “The question of authenticity should be examined by investigators, not the Court.”
The petitioner has urged that only a court-monitored SIT can uncover whether the recording reveals a criminal conspiracy or whether the controversy stems from mishandling by State agencies.
The bench concluded for the day without ordering an investigation but noted that the matter “requires careful consideration” before passing its next order.
The hearing ended with the Court indicating that the decision would focus strictly on whether an SIT probe is warranted at this stage.
Case Title: Kuki Organization for Human Rights Trust v. Union of India
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 702/2024
Case Type: Writ Petition (Civil)
Decision Date: Pending – Latest hearing in November 2025