The Supreme Court of India has ordered a probe into alleged extra-judicial killings in Manipur. The court was hearing a petition filed by the Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM), which alleged that over 1,500 people were killed by security forces in the state between 1979 and 2012. A bench headed by Justice Madan B. Lokur directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the allegations and file a report within six months. The court observed that the allegations were serious and required a thorough investigation. The petitioners had alleged that the security forces had carried out fake encounters and killed innocent people, and that the state government had failed to take action against the perpetrators. The court's order is significant as it has raised questions about the role of security forces in the state and the need for greater accountability. The judgment has been welcomed by human rights groups, who have long been demanding a probe into the alleged extra-judicial killings. The court's decision has also sparked a debate on the use of force by security forces in conflict zones and the need for greater transparency and accountability. The probe is expected to shed light on the circumstances surrounding the alleged killings and to bring justice to the families of the victims. The court's order has also highlighted the need for greater protection of human rights in conflict zones and the importance of ensuring that security forces are held accountable for their actions. The judgment is a significant step forward in the protection of human rights in Manipur and is expected to have a lasting impact on the state's human rights landscape. The court's emphasis on the need for a thorough investigation has also highlighted the importance of ensuring that justice is delivered to the families of the victims. The probe is expected to be a complex and challenging task, but the court's order has sent a strong message that the allegations of extra-judicial killings will not be ignored. The judgment has also raised questions about the role of the state government in protecting human rights and the need for greater accountability in the state's administration.