Manipur: The Curious Case of Articles 355 and 356

Manipur has been in the throes of unrest over the last nine months. Ironically, official attempts to broker peace in the state seem to have further stirred the hornet’s nest. When violence between the Kukis and the Meiteis erupted in May last year, the Union government initiated certain restorative measures but no official word on their legal grounds were made public. Consequently, there was speculation regarding whether the Centre had invoked its emergency powers under Article 355 or not. The recent onslaught of violence across various pockets of Manipur, the “collective demand” put forward by as many as 35 MLAs and the resultant visit of the delegation of the Union Home Ministry, and most importantly, the all-party meeting summoned by the Meitei radical group Aarambai Tenggol, resurrected the conversation around the degree of authority that the Centre legitimately held in the state. While an overall resolution is nowhere in sight, one important piece of information that has come to light is that Manipur has been under Article 355 since May 2023, although there is no official order available to connote or confirm that.The question then arises: are the people of Manipur are being subjected to a silent emergency? Is the state heading towards Presidential Rule? Manipur: Amid Intensified Violence, Arambai Tenggol ‘Summons’ Meitei MLAsIn May last year, the Centre appointed former DIG (deputy inspector general of police), Kuldeip Singh, as an advisor to the Chief Minister and the chairman of the peace brokering body, the Union Command. This was concomitant to a flurry of other measures like the deployment of government forces like the Assam Rifles and over 20,000 RPF (railway protection force) and BSF (border security force) personnel across the state. There was also a tripartite Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement signed between the Centre, the state, and Kuki militant groups for the withdrawal of hostilities.Despite these overt steps by the Centre, there has been persistent ambiguity around the scope of its involvement and under which legal provisions were these steps being undertaken. While responding to an RTI (Right to Information) filed last year by the Karnataka High Court Advocate Ajay Kumar, the Ministry of Home Affairs categorically specified that it had no information about any order affirming the imposition of the Centre's emergency powers in the state.Typically it is the emergency powers enlisted under Article 355 and subsequently Article 356 of the Indian Constitution that empowers the Centre to assume administrative and legislative control over a state.Although these measures were squarely in line with these provisions, no official order on the imposition of either of the Articles was proclaimed. Manipur Violence: Five Killed in Two Separate Incidents Since WednesdayWhile continuing to be riddled with questions of legalities, a few specific incidents in the recent context have triggered the demand for clarity on this matter. Firstly, the Ministry of Home Affairs initiated the fencing of the Manipur-Myanmar border alleging the insurgence of illegal refugees from Myanmar as the chief cause of ethnic discord. Secondly, the Centre received two sets of demands from either side. While the Kuki side sought the separation of power between the administrations of the hills and the valley, along with the removal of the Chief Minister, the Meitei side demanded the Unified Command to be placed under the CM, have Kuldeip Singh dismissed, and have the Central forces withdrawn. The Centre rejected the former and sent a three-member delegation in response to the latter.However, the name of the CM was conspicuously absent from the list of personnel of the Unified Command.Now, these in themselves are strong indices to the manifestation of power and control of the Centre over internal matters of a state, something the it cannot do ordinarily because law and order are essentially state subjects. Finally, while addressing a multi-party meeting, CM Biren Singh put the surmises to rest by admitting that Article 355 in fact has been in place in Manipur since May 2023. To reiterate, no written official order to this effect has yet been provided. Manipur Violence: What Is Free Movement Regime & Why Does Centre Want to End it?It is important to demystify the difference between Article 355 and Article 356 before we address the Manipur question. Article 355 ascribes a duty upon the Union Government to take necessary steps to protect a state from “internal disturbances and external aggression”. This provision merely sets the stage for the Centre to intervene in matters which otherwise would be the prerogative of the state. Contrarily, Article 356 introduces the provision under which the President can assume all authority over a state if the Governor of the state, by making a Proclamation, informs him so.Known as President’s rule, this provision clearly states that upon the imposition of Article 356, all powers of the Governor will be conferred upon the President, and the Centre can make administrative and legislative changes in the state including necessary changes to the Constitution as well.As we know historically, even fundamental rights can stand to be suspended during President’s Rule. Article 355 specifies nothing to that effect. It simply authorises the Centre to take steps as deemed necessary to ensure that the governance in a state is in line with the provisions of the Constitution. It may be interesting to note that Article 355 was introduced through a constitutional amendment in 1948 to provide a legal warrant to the Union government for invoking their emergency powers. Dr B R Ambedkar himself stated that the purpose behind the introduction of Article 355 was to ensure that in cases where the Centre would interfere in the administration of a state's affairs, it would be done under some constitutional obligation.Since the emergency powers under Article 356 vest the Centre with unhinged authority and must be used very rarely, Article 355 became the essential justification for invoking the President's Rule.This was designed to safeguard the federal structure of our country. The Supreme Court further clarified this provision in the S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case where it held;“Art. 355 is not an independent source of power for interference with the functioning of the State Government but is in the nature of justification for the measures to be adopted under Arts. 356 and 357.”So, the clear answer is that Manipur is currently not under the President's Rule. In fact, last year, the Minister of Home Affairs had distinctly stated that since the state was cooperating, the Union government did not see the need for President's Rule. But, it is now confirmed that Article 355, which justifies the Centre’s interference in the state’s internal matters, is the valid order of the day. Articles 355 and 356 are at best contiguous and not interchangeable. One can say that the former is a step below the latter since it retains the state government while facilitating greater involvement of the Centre, unlike the latter, where the state government’s authority is entirely yielded in the favour of the Union government. But, lest we forget, never in the history of India has Article 355 been issued without the application of Article 356. So, although Manipur is yet to come under the President's Rule, there's not much ground to negate the possibility of it being imposed soon. (Yashaswini Basu is a Bengaluru-based lawyer. This is an opinion article and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)Year-Ender: Revisiting Issues of Land and Indigeneity in Conflict-torn Manipur

BECOME A MEMBER

Manipur: The Curious Case of Articles 355 and 356

The question that arises: are the people of Manipur are being subjected to a silent emergency?

Read Latest News and Breaking News at The Quint, browse for more from opinion

Topics: Manipur violence