Fresh violence broke out in Manipur’s Ukhrul district after clashes between Tangkhul Naga and Kuki communities in the commercial town of Litan, leading to arson and large-scale evacuation of residents.

According to police, at least 25 houses and four government quarters were set ablaze during the clashes that erupted late on Sunday night at Litan Bazar. A preliminary assessment also found that two of the damaged houses belonged to members of the Kuki community.

Heavy security deployment, evacuation underway

Residents said the situation remained tense but calm for the moment following the deployment of additional security forces. Evacuation is continuing in Litan and the neighbouring village of Mangkot, with families moving out amid fears of further escalation.

The violence reportedly occurred between 11:30 pm and midnight, when sounds of automatic gunfire and rifle shots were heard, triggering panic among locals. Many residents were seen fleeing the area in pickup trucks, private vehicles and on foot, carrying essential belongings and household items.

Personnel from the Litan police station assisted in facilitating safe movement of civilians while maintaining law and order. Officials said the affected areas were secured by personnel from the BSF, CRPF and Assam Rifles, with reinforcements sent to prevent further incidents.

Curfew imposed in Litan village

In view of the unrest, the Ukhrul District Magistrate imposed a curfew in Litan village on Sunday evening. The order cited apprehension of a breach of peace and public tranquillity between the two communities, along with risks to life and property.

Police said the immediate trigger for the violence was a drunken altercation on the evening of February 7 at Litan Sareikhong. During the incident, a Tangkhul Naga man, identified as Sterling, was allegedly assaulted and later shifted to a hospital in Imphal for treatment.

Litan, located around 35 km from Imphal, is home to both Tangkhul Naga and Kuki communities and serves as a key trading centre for nearby villages. Officials noted that the town’s mixed population and closely linked market and residential zones contributed to the sensitivity of the situation.

Chief Minister visits injured, appeals for calm

Chief Minister Yumnam Khemchand Singh visited the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital to inquire about the condition of those injured in the violence. He was accompanied by state BJP president Adhikarimayum Sharda Devi and other MLAs.

During the visit, the Chief Minister interacted with doctors and hospital authorities and reviewed the medical care being provided. The state government assured that all necessary medical treatment and support would be extended to those affected and their families.

Describing the incident as arising out of a misunderstanding, the Chief Minister said the situation was under control and urged all communities to exercise restraint.

“I appeal to all communities to uphold the rule of law and maintain peace and harmony. I wish a speedy recovery to all those injured,” he said.

Police confirmed that an FIR has been registered and investigations are ongoing. Authorities said security forces remain deployed and the situation is being closely monitored.

The opposition has submitted a notice seeking the removal of Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, accusing him of partisan conduct and repeatedly denying opposition leaders the opportunity to speak in the House.

Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi said on Tuesday that the notice was filed under Article 94(c) of the Constitution, which provides for the removal of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha through a resolution passed by a majority of the total membership of the House.

According to parliamentary sources, the notice has been submitted to the Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha and will be examined and processed in accordance with established rules and procedures.

Opposition alleges bias and denial of speaking time

Addressing reporters after filing the notice, Gogoi said the motion expresses no confidence in the Speaker and reflects concerns shared by multiple opposition parties.

He said the Leader of the Opposition, Congress MP Rahul Gandhi, has been repeatedly denied permission to speak in Parliament, adding that this has been a persistent issue throughout recent sittings of the House.

Opposition parties have accused the Speaker of favouring ruling party members, particularly in matters related to allotment of speaking time and permitting or blocking remarks critical of the government.

Article 94(c) procedure and timeline

Under Article 94(c), a motion for removal of the Speaker requires a minimum 14-day notice period before it can be taken up for consideration in the Lok Sabha.

Given the remaining calendar of the current session, the motion is unlikely to be tabled before the session concludes on February 13. Parliament is scheduled to reconvene for the next session on March 9.

Recent parliamentary standoffs add to tensions

The notice comes amid escalating tensions between the government and the opposition during recent sittings of Parliament.

Last week, Rahul Gandhi was denied permission to read from former Army chief General M M Naravane’s memoir during a discussion related to the 2020 Ladakh border standoff with China. This decision triggered strong protests from opposition members inside the House.

The situation further deteriorated after repeated adjournments of both Houses over the past two weeks, with protests disrupting proceedings and leading to the cancellation of a scheduled Lok Sabha speech by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Allegations involving BJP MPs and Speaker’s remarks

Sources said the opposition’s notice highlights three key issues, including the Speaker’s refusal to allow Rahul Gandhi to read from the former Army chief’s book, while BJP MP Nishikant Dubey was permitted to read from books critical of the Congress and the Gandhi family.

During that episode, the presiding officer reportedly asked Dubey to stop, but the BJP MP continued. Opposition parties have questioned the absence of disciplinary action in that instance.

The notice also refers to the Speaker’s remarks alleging that some women opposition MPs had planned to take action against the Prime Minister inside Parliament. Om Birla later said he had advised the Prime Minister not to enter the House after women MPs from the Congress were seen near the Prime Minister’s seat holding banners.

The move to submit a no-trust motion against the Speaker underscores the deepening mistrust between the ruling party and the opposition, with parliamentary functioning increasingly affected by confrontations and protests.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s plea challenging the Delhi High Court’s refusal to suspend his sentence in the custodial death case linked to the Unnao rape survivor’s father. Instead, the top court directed the High Court to hear Sengar’s appeal on an out-of-turn basis and decide it within three months.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N V Anjaria said that any appeal filed by the victim’s family should also be taken up together with Sengar’s petition by the High Court.

High Court asked to hear matter expeditiously

The bench was hearing Sengar’s challenge to a January 19 order of the Delhi High Court, which had declined to suspend his 10-year jail term in the custodial death case. During the proceedings, the court was informed that Sengar’s appeal is scheduled for hearing before the High Court on February 11.

The Chief Justice expressed strong disapproval over statements being made in the media by the victim’s counsel. Observing that the court was aware of the surrounding coverage, Justice Kant said there should be no “parallel trial” outside the courtroom.

Background of the case

On March 13, 2020, a trial court sentenced Sengar to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹10 lakh in connection with the custodial death of the rape survivor’s father. The court had then ruled that “no leniency” could be shown for the killing of a family’s “sole bread earner”.

The survivor’s father was arrested under the Arms Act in April 2018 and later died in custody due to alleged police brutality. The trial court convicted Sengar under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, holding that there was no intention to kill, but awarded the maximum sentence prescribed under the provision.

Related appeals still pending

Sengar’s appeals against his conviction in the custodial death case, as well as his December 2019 conviction in the rape case—where he was sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life—are currently pending before the High Court.

In the rape case, the High Court had suspended Sengar’s sentence on December 23, 2025, during the pendency of his appeal. However, the Supreme Court stayed that suspension on December 29.