Font size:
Print
Manipur as a case for Imposing Article 356
Context:
The ongoing turmoil in Manipur, marked by continued violence and systemic breakdown since May 2023, has reignited the debate on invoking Article 356 of the Indian Constitution.
Key Arguments for Invoking Article 356 in Manipur:
- Breakdown of Constitutional Machinery:
- The state government’s failure to restore peace, ensure justice, and protect fundamental rights constitutes a clear collapse of constitutional governance.
- Article 356 empowers the President to act based on evidence of governance failure, even without a Governor’s report.
- Threat to Fundamental Rights:
- Persistent violence undermines citizens’ rights to life and liberty (Article 21).
- Despite 27 Supreme Court hearings, the judiciary’s interventions have failed to translate into tangible improvements on the ground.
- Constitutional Intent: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar defended Article 356 as a safeguard for constitutional governance, applicable in situations like Manipur’s crisis, where administrative machinery has collapsed.
- Urgent Need for Neutral Intervention:
- The state lacks the capacity to manage relief, rehabilitation, and communal harmony.
- Central administration under President’s Rule could offer impartial governance to address these issues.
Reasons for Not Imposing President’s Rule in Manipur till now:
Despite the escalating violence and administrative failure, President’s Rule has not been invoked due to several factors:
- Political Sensitivities: Imposing President’s Rule risks being perceived as undermining state autonomy, especially in a politically charged region like the Northeast.
- Historical Misuse: Past misuse of Article 356 for political gains necessitates caution. Missteps could erode trust in central institutions.
- Long-Term Solutions Required: The crisis in Manipur stems from deep-seated ethnic tensions and socio-economic disparities. President’s Rule, a temporary measure, cannot address these systemic issues.
- Judiciary’s Role: The Supreme Court has actively monitored the crisis, emphasising accountability and rehabilitation without endorsing the President’s Rule.
- Federalism Concerns: Imposing President’s Rule could be seen as undermining state autonomy, a principle central to India’s federal structure.
Confluence and Clash: Powers of President vs. Governor
The interplay between the President and the Governor is central to the invocation of Article 356.
- Governor’s Role: The Governor assesses the ground situation and reports to the President, highlighting the state government’s failure. While such reports traditionally trigger the process, Article 356 does not explicitly mandate them, allowing the President to act independently if sufficient evidence of governance breakdown exists.
- President’s Authority: Based on Article 356, the President can dissolve the state legislature and impose direct central rule. However, this authority is exercised on the recommendation of the Council of Ministers, maintaining the federal balance.
- This dynamic can lead to tension, especially if the Governor’s assessment is seen as politically motivated or if the Centre bypasses their input.
Relevant Constitutional Provisions:
- Article 355: Obligates the Union to protect states from internal disturbances and ensure governance in accordance with the Constitution.
- Article 356: Allows the President to impose central rule if a state government fails to function constitutionally. The provision is a safeguard, not a tool of expediency.
- Judicial Oversight: In the landmark S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India case, the Supreme Court held that the imposition of President’s Rule is subject to judicial review, ensuring accountability and preventing misuse.
Historical Context of Article 356: The debates during the Constituent Assembly reveal both opposition and defence of this extraordinary provision:
- Opposition (H.V. Kamath): Described it as a “constitutional crime” for enabling excessive central interference.
- Support (Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar, K. Santhanam): Highlighted its necessity during “widespread internal disturbance” or “failure of machinery” to ensure constitutional governance.
- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Defended it as a safeguard, ensuring that the President would act with due diligence before suspending a state’s administration.
Why Manipur is a Unique Case:
- Civilian-Centric Violence: Unlike insurgency-driven conflicts in other northeastern states or terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir, Manipur’s crisis involves widespread civilian violence, with ordinary citizens both as victims and perpetrators.
- Ethical and Constitutional Responsibility: Article 355 obliges the Union to safeguard constitutional governance in states, a duty it has failed to fulfil despite interventions.
Immediate Steps needed Under President’s Rule:
- Restoring Order: Neutral administration can ensure impartial investigations and effective law enforcement.
- Relief and Rehabilitation: Central intervention can expedite aid, rebuild infrastructure, and foster communal harmony.
- Accountability Measures: Holding perpetrators accountable will restore public trust and deter future violence.
