Manipur as a case for imposing Article 356

The state of Manipur reflects a classic case of the failure of the constitutional machinery, necessitating invocation of Article 356 by the President of India. The President need not wait for the report from the Governor because, under this Article, the President can act if, “otherwise”, satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of that State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. In Manipur, the unprecedented and horrific violence that erupted in May 2023, continues unabated.

B.R. Ambedkar, defining this extraordinary provision to the Constituent Assembly, on August 3, 1949 said, “I think I can well begin by reminding the House that it has been agreed by the House, where we were considering the general principles of the Constitution, that the Constitution should provide some machinery for the breakdown of the Constitution….” He further said, “I think as a necessary consequence to the introduction of article 277-A, we must also give liberty to the President to act even when there is no report by the Governor and when the President has got certain facts within his knowledge on which he thinks, he ought to act in the fulfilment of his duty.”

Why Manipur is proving to be different

The President of India, Droupadi Murmu, has proved that she is conscious and sensitive about her constitutional functions. And she has the power coupled with duty to act as soon as possible. No State in India has seen such continuing violence among the common people. Violence on account of insurgencies did take place in Nagaland and Mizoram a long time ago and terrorism continues unabated in Jammu and Kashmir.

But Manipur is a different situation where the ordinary people are not only becoming victims of violence but are also being forced to indulge in violence to protect themselves.

It is important to refresh the nation with the lively debates on this Article in the Constituent Assembly proceedings of August 3-4, 1949. H.V. Kamath strongly opposed it, calling it as “A constitutional crime to empower the President to interfere”, while Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar defended saying, “In the first place, I would explain the reason why the Article has been put in[,] making it the duty of the Union ‘to maintain the Constitution’… if there is any unit … any difficulty with regard to the proper working of the Constitution, it would be the obvious duty of the Union government to intervene and set matters right….”

K. Santhanam stated, “Now, let us broadly analyse the circumstances in which these Articles can come into operation. There may be a physical breakdown of the Government in the State, as for instance, when there is widespread internal disturbance or external aggression or for some reason or other, law and order cannot be maintained. In that case, it is obvious that there is no provincial authority which can function and the only authority which can function is the Central Government, and in that contingency these articles are not only unobjectionable but absolutely essential and without it the whole thing will be in chaos.”

Thakur Das Bhargava said, “May I point out that the situation is one in which the entire machinery has failed, and ordinary people do not enjoy the common liberties? Internal disturbance to peace and tranquillity are all covered by this.”

Dr Ambedkar again rose on August 4, 1949 and responded, “…The expression ‘failure of machinery’ I find has been used in the Government of India Act, 1935. Everybody must be quite familiar therefore with its de facto and de jure meaning…” and that, “…If at all they are brought into operation, I hope the President, who is endowed with these powers, will take proper precautions before actually suspending the administration of the provinces.” The Article was thus passed.

Article 355 obliges the Union to assist States to meet such challenges and one can assume that the Union government has indeed done so, though unsuccessfully.

EDITORIAL | Supreme indictment: on Manipur crisis and the Supreme Court of India’s censure

Court’s order

The Supreme Court of India in a Public Interest Litigation on May 8, 2023, passed an order merely recorded, “The Solicitor General states that as a consequence of the measures which have been adopted, no violence has been reported in the State during the course of the previous two days and the situation is gradually returning to normalcy.” It laid stress on the point of “the need to preserve law and order and, in particular, to provide relief and rehabilitation” and observed that “utmost vigil should be maintained to ensure that there is no recurrence of violence”.

The Court recorded assurance from the Union, “The Solicitor General has assured the Court that the concerns which have been placed on the record in the petition and in the additional affidavits which have been filed in the proceedings, shall be duly taken note of and such remedial steps as are required would be adopted on a proactive basis.” But in July 2023 the Court, suo motu, took notice of the incident of May 4 where women were paraded naked by a mob. It observed, “The Court is deeply disturbed by the visuals which have appeared in the media since yesterday depicting the perpetration of sexual assault and violence on women in Manipur. What is portrayed in the media would indicate gross constitutional violations and infractions of human rights. Using women as instruments for perpetrating violence is simply unacceptable in a constitutional democracy.

“This Court must be apprised of the steps which have been and shall be taken by the government to (i) hold the perpetrators accountable; and (ii) ensure that such incidents are not repeated.”

Violence unabated

Between May 3 and November 11, 2024, more than 250 people have been killed and over a lakh of people displaced from their homes in the ethnic violence. Hundreds of temples, churches, homes and other places have been destroyed. Even on November 9, a mother of three was raped and killed and 17 houses set on fire.

Clearly, the Supreme Court’s intervention was slow and ineffective despite there having been 27 hearings. It is shocking that under the watchful eyes of the ultimate protector of fundamental rights, the mayhem continues, depriving the three million people of Manipur of fundamental rights and their lives, liberty, dignity, and peace. Why have the top judges who were on the Bench been silent spectators? Does this not show that the Supreme Court is becoming weaker in recent years?

Sectarian violence in Manipur is a matter of concern for India. It is surprising and shocking that the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is not able to stop the carnage. Whatever may be its compulsions, it should have acted decisively a long time ago. The Prime Minister should have acted decisively to bring back peace, harmony, justice, relief and rehabilitation.

The situation demands the immediate intervention of the President. It is true that Article 356 has been more abused than used. But today, its invocation will be lauded nationally.

Dushyant Dave is Senior Advocate and a former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association of India