Imphal, March 08, 2010: Demanding identification of the Minister who shot Advocate General Nongmeikappam Koteshwar, local people of Uripok Tourangbam Leikai and Uripok Laikhurembi staged protest demonstrations today.

On the other hand, the lawyer fraternity of the State suspended work today in protest against the shooting.

The protest demonstration at Uripok Tourangbam Leikai was staged after a public meeting was held yesterday under the joint aegis of the Uripok Tourangbam Leikai Welfare Organisation and the Women's Welfare Organisation.

The meeting adopted eight resolutions which included identification of the Minister who shot the AG, explanation of the circumstances under which the shot was fired and the reasons for opening blank fire.

Explanation for inviting the AG to ride together with the Ministers, dismissal and detention of the guilty Minister under NSA and CBI enquiry were the demands/resolutions adopted at the meeting.

The local people also asked as to why no FIR has been registered even after the Chief Minister has stated before media that the shot was fired accidentally by one of the two Ministers.

Placards which read as �Would a gun be put on Koteshawar had he been killed�, were put up during the protest demonstration staged today.

One woman protester said that teams made up by five local people each have been overseeing injured Koteshwar, putting themselves up at the hospital where he is being treated since yesterday in rotation.

Recalling that one MPP functionary was imprisoned under NSA for three months for firing a single shot in the air, the woman asked if a mere apology would suffice when a Minister shoots the AG.

A similar demonstration was also staged at Uripok Laikhurembi.

On the other hand, decrying that act of shooting and injuring the Advocate General by one Minister, lawyers suspended their works today.

The High Court Bar Association also held an emergency meeting in connection with the shooting incident.

Strongly condemning the incident, the High Court Bar Association resolved that an FIR should be registered at the police station concerned and the same should be handed over to CBI or a central agency for proper enquiry.

All lawyers affiliated to the association would not be working till tomorrow.

They have decided to stage a sit-in-protest at High Court complex tomorrow.

Meanwhile, the HERICOUN has conveyed surprise as well as anguish against the incident of shooting the Advocate General.

It asserted that the incident should be investigated by an enquiry committee within a short period.

A press release issued by the HERICOUN claimed that the Governor, the Chief Minister and Centre should look into the incident.

Observing that the AG could have been killed in the incident, it remarked that the shooting incident reflected very careless attitude of the Minister who otherwise should be very responsible being a public leader.

The incident has the potential to cut off the connection between Judiciary, Executive and the Legislature.

CPI (Maoists), Manipur State Council asserted that the incident was a serious crime as it presented a direct threat to the AG's life.

Urging upon the Chief Minister to sack the Minister who fired the shot, the CPI (Maoists) also demanded a high level enquiry into the incident.

Meanwhile, the Hungpung Village Authority has conveyed sorrow over the injury suffered by AG N Koteshwar.

Joining the outcry against shooting and injuring the Advocate General, the MPP alleged that the Chief Minister's assertion that no enquiry was needed only exposed the conspiracy to condone the guilty Minister.

Failure of police to take up a suo moto case in connection with the incident has raised suspicion of people all the more, MPP said in a press release.

The BJP Manipur Pradesh has also condemned the Chief Minister's most casual treatment of the incident by ruling out any need for enquiry.

The BJP questioned the connotation of the Chief Minister's refusal to divulge the identity of the Minister who shot Koteshwar.

It further asked whether the issue can be closed without any enquiry by simply claiming that the Ministers and the Advocate General reconciled within themselves.

Comment