President’s Rule in Manipur: Context, Implications, and Constitutional Provisions

Context

Manipur has been witnessing prolonged ethnic violence and political instability, leading to the collapse of the BJP-led state government and the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356. The crisis stems from ethnic conflicts between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities, displacement of thousands of people, and the failure of governance in restoring peace.

The situation escalated when:

• Chief Minister N. Biren Singh resigned on February 9, 2025, following discussions with Union Home Minister Amit Shah and BJP President J.P. Nadda.
• Coalition partners, NPP and KPA, withdrew support, citing the government's failure to handle the ethnic conflict.
• The State Assembly had not convened for over six months, leading to suspended animation under President’s Rule.

This marks the 11th time President’s Rule has been imposed in Manipur, the last instance being in 2001-02.

President’s Rule: Constitutional Provisions and Implications

Article 356 and President’s Rule

As per Article 356 of the Indian Constitution:

• The President can impose President’s Rule if the Governor reports that the state government is unable to function in accordance with constitutional provisions.
• The Governor of Manipur, Ajay Kumar Bhalla, submitted a report, based on which the President took action.

Duration and Parliamentary Approval

• President’s Rule remains in force for two months unless approved by both Houses of Parliament.
• Once approved, it can be extended up to six months.
• It cannot extend beyond three years, with parliamentary approval required every six months.
• The President can revoke it at any time through a subsequent proclamation.

Consequences of President’s Rule

• The state government’s functions are taken over by the Centre.
• The Governor administers the state on behalf of the President.
• The powers of the State Legislature are transferred to Parliament.
• The functioning of the High Court remains unaffected.

Judicial Review: S.R. Bommai Case (1994)

• The Supreme Court ruled that President’s Rule is subject to judicial review.
• The President cannot dissolve the State Legislative Assembly without parliamentary approval.
• Until approval is obtained, the assembly remains suspended, not dissolved.

Reasons for President’s Rule in Manipur

1. Ethnic Conflict and Law and Order Breakdown

   • Violence between Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities since May 2023 has led to the displacement of over 60,000 people.
   • Armed groups, known as "village volunteers", have looted weapons from police stations, leading to militarization of civil society.

2. Political Instability

   • The BJP-led government lost majority support after coalition partners NPP and KPA withdrew.
   • The Congress had threatened to introduce a no-confidence motion against the government.

3. Failure to Convene the State Assembly

   • The Manipur Legislative Assembly had not met for over six months, violating parliamentary norms.
   • As a result, the Assembly was placed under suspended animation.

4. Inability to Restore Normalcy

   • The Biren Singh government was seen as biased in handling ethnic tensions.
   • Previous efforts to retrieve looted weapons and restore order had failed.

Implications of President’s Rule in Manipur

Restoring Law and Order

• The Union Home Ministry will now directly oversee security operations.
• Armed groups, including insurgent elements from Myanmar, need to be disarmed.
• Special efforts must be made to retrieve looted weapons and prosecute offenders.

Rehabilitation and Peace Efforts

• Over 60,000 displaced individuals require urgent relief and resettlement.
• The Centre must initiate peace talks between Meitei and Kuki-Zo community leaders.
• Restoring trust in governance is essential for long-term stability.

Political and Administrative Stability

• Fresh elections should be held at an appropriate time once normalcy is restored.
• Ethnic representation in governance must be balanced to prevent further conflicts.
• Strict neutrality in governance is crucial to rebuilding trust among communities.

Conclusion

The imposition of President’s Rule in Manipur highlights the failure of the state government to maintain law and order. While it provides an opportunity for the Centre to restore peace and stability, it also underscores the deep-rooted ethnic divisions in the state. Moving forward, the Union government must ensure effective governance, rehabilitation, and reconciliation efforts before considering fresh elections. The success of this intervention will depend on the government’s ability to neutralize armed groups, restore public confidence, and create a path for long-term stability in Manipur.