Manipur Police Sent Edited Clips For Forensic Analysis : Kuki Group To Supreme Court In Plea For Probe Against Ex-CM Biren Singh

The Kuki Organization for Human Right Trust has told the Supreme Court that the Manipur Police forwarded only short, edited clips to the National Forensic Science University (NFSU), Gandhinagar, instead of the complete 48-minute recording that allegedly contains a conversation implicating former Manipur Chief Minister N. Biren Singh in the 2023 ethnic violence.

“the Respondent forwarded only four short, cut-out clips of durations 0:30, 1:28, 0:36, and 1:47 minutes, recording, instead of the complete 48-minute and 46-second recording, thereby giving an incomplete and misleading representation of the evidence. misleading representation of the evidence. Such selective transmission of material raises serious concern regarding the bona fides of the Respondent's conduct and its impact on the fairness of the ongoing investigation”, the organization has said.

The allegation is made in a detailed affidavit responding to NFSU's report dated October 10, 2025, which found the audio files tampered with and unfit for scientific voice comparison. The affidavit has been filed in the organization's writ petition seeking an independent court-monitored probe into the role of state machinery in the ethnic violence.

According to the affidavit sworn by the organisation's chairman, Houlim Shokhapa Mate, the petitioner had filed the full 48-minute 46-second recording through a supplementary affidavit on January 22, 2025. The affidavit states that the Court had directed that this complete file be examined by NFSL.

However, it states that the Cyber Crime unit of the Manipur Police sent only four clips of 0:30, 1:28, 0:36 and 1:47 minutes to the laboratory. The affidavit states neither the petitioner nor the petitioner's counsel were informed that only these fragments had been sent.

“the forwarding agency, i.e., the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Cyber Crime, Manipur, transmitted only four short, cut-out clips of durations 0:30, 1:28, 0:36, and 1:47 minutes, instead of the complete 48-minute 46-second recording. Consequently, the NFSU could not verify the continuity or authenticity of the original recording, and even the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) was unable to examine the same for the very same reason. The Petitioner was neither informed nor aware of which audio clips were being forwarded for forensic examination, and having already filed the full recording through the supplementary affidavit dated 22.01.2025, genuinely believed that the same had been sent. It was, therefore, shocking to discover later that the audio clips actually transmitted were incorrect, represent the original recording”, the affidavit reads.

NFSL later told the Supreme Court that the clips it received were tampered with and not scientifically fit for voice comparison, and no opinion could be offered on whether the voice matched that of the former Chief Minister.

“NFSU Gandhinagar confined its analysis to metadata and tampering detection, found discontinuities and processing traces, and declared the clips “tampered” or “Al-generated,” without conducting auditory or spectrographic voice comparison. That even the control recordings (A1-A3) provided by Doordarshan Kendra, being original broadcast masters and also admitted voice of Chief Minister Biren Singh, were wrongly treated by NFSU as “processed/altered,” and declared unfit for comparison”, the affidavit further states.

The affidavit sets out the petitioner's response to NFSL's conclusions. It states that NFSL had received only cut-out segments rather than the full recording. In contrast, the affidavit states, the earlier Truth Labs analysis was conducted on two pen drives submitted by the petitioner on November 14, 2024 – Pen Drive A containing the full impugned recording and Pen Drive B containing speeches of the Chief Minister.

Truth Labs, after auditory, acoustic, spectrographic and statistical tests, concluded on January 18, 2025 that the voices matched with 93 percent probability, the affidavit states.

“The report of Truth Labs thus reflects far greater scientific diligence and evidentiary value, whereas the Gandhinagar report suffers from procedural and methodological infirmities arising from the incomplete material forwarded”, the affidavit contends.

It is the case of the petitioner that transcripts of the 48-minute recording, first published in August 2024, allegedly showed the involvement of the state machinery in violence during the 2023 clashes between Meitei and Kuki communities. The affidavit also notes that the Justice Lamba Commission of Inquiry received the full recording but later forwarded a shorter version to Truth Labs after removing portions to protect the identity and safety of the person concerned.

The affidavit further states that the petitioner has complied with all Supreme Court directions since November 8, 2024, while the State repeatedly forwarded incomplete material.

The affidavit reiterates the petitioner's prayer for a court-monitored Special Investigation Team to examine the recording and related allegations. It contends that the material on record shows prima facie involvement of the highest functionary of the State and that the question of authenticity should now be examined by investigators, not the Court.

“Such an exercise is squarely within the domain of the investigating agency, and a duly constituted SIT would be best placed to ascertain the authenticity and the larger criminal conspiracy behind the leak. The inconclusiveness of the forensic report cannot, by itself, be treated as a ground to stifle investigation at the threshold. Even if, upon thorough investigation, no material is ultimately found, a closure report may be filed in accordance with law. However, a criminal case must be set in motion based on the audio recording and the Truth Lab report, so that the truth may emerge through a fair, independent, and comprehensive investigation”, the affidavit states.

Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 702/2024

Case Title – Kuki Organization for Human Rights Trust v. Union of India