Exploring the Impact of Article 355 on Manipur: A Critical Analysis
Manipur High Court in Mutum Churamani Meetel v. State of Manipur, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 229/2023 ordered the State govt. to follow a 10-year-old recommendation to grant the non-tribal Meitei community Scheduled Tribe (ST) status precipitated recent turmoil in the State of Manipur. Reliable sources claim that the Centre has implemented Article 355 throughout the State to regulate the situation due to the current, unprecedented fire crisis.[i]
Article 355
It is a provision under Part XVIII of the Constitution, titled “Emergency Provisions”. Article 355 of the Indian Constitution is a provision that mandates the Union government to
protect the states from external aggression and internal disturbance and to
ensure that the government of every State is carried out by the provisions of
the Constitution. It empowers the Union to issue directions to the state
governments to ensure compliance with these provisions. The objective of this
article is to ensure the integrity and security of the nation by preventing any
form of threat to the governance of the states.
The Indian Constitution’s Article 355 gives the Union
government the authority to direct the state governments to enforce adherence
to the Constitution’s rules. The use of this power is subject to some
limitations, though. First off, only when the Union government is convinced
that a specific state is not being administered in line with the Constitution’s
provisions may it give such directives. This means that without any
justification, the Union cannot give the state governments directives at will. Second,
the Union government’s orders made by Article 355 must be intended to safeguard
the nation from external aggression and internal unrest. This clause prohibits
the Union from meddling in the domestic business of the state governments. Thirdly,
the Federalist tenets and the cooperative spirit between the Union and the
states must serve as the Union government’s compass when using this authority.
When giving any instructions under this clause, the Union administration shall
respect the states’ autonomy and work with them in consultation.
In conclusion, Article 355 gives the Union government the
authority to instruct the state governments, but it also imposes limitations on
this power’s use to protect the Indian Constitution’s federal structure.
The arguments in the constituent assembly reveal that the
Constitution’s authors were worried about the misuse of the emergency measures
in Part XVIII. Dr B. R. Ambedkar once said that the authority provided by
Articles 355 and 356 should only be used sparingly. He said, “The proper thing
we ought to expect is that such articles will never be called into operation
and that they would remain a dead letter,” during a discussion of the
constituent assembly in August 1949. I hope that the president, who has all of
these powers, will take the necessary safeguards before really suspending the
administration of the provinces if they are ever put into effect. It is recognized
as a result that emergency measures may only be used in life-threatening
circumstances. Hence Preventing authoritarian activities from New Delhi from
using them arbitrarily. Citizens have the right to petition the courts to
examine activities.
According to P. Doungel, Director General of the Manipur
Police, Article 355 has been implemented throughout the State, enabling the
federal government to take all necessary action to stabilize the situation and
safeguard the lives and property of the populace. The police had claimed that
several miscreants broke into a police station in the Bishnupur district and
stole weapons and ammunition. He pleaded with them to restore the items before
taking harsh action against them.[ii]“The
situation in Manipur is expected to be brought under control in a day or two,”
the DGP said. After hundreds of people participated in the Wednesday “Tribal
Solidarity March” to reject the demand that the Meitei group be classified as a
Scheduled Tribe (ST), the atmosphere became extremely tense. The Manipur
government on Thursday permitted all District Magistrates, Sub-Divisional
Magistrates, and all Executive Magistrates to issue “Shoot at sight orders” in
exceptional circumstances due to the current scenario.
According to a defence spokesman, flag marches and aerial
surveillance were carried out by Army and Assam Rifles forces in the
Churachandpur district’s Khuga, Tampa, and Khomaujanbba area, the Imphal West
district’s Mantripukhri, Lamphel, and Koeirangi area, and the Kakching district’s
Sugnu. The Chief Minister appealed to the populace to uphold tranquilly and
cooperation with the state government. As thousands of tribal people participated in
a march organized by the All-Tribal Students Union of Manipur (ATSUM) in all 10
hill districts to protest the Meitei community’s demand to be included in the
ST category, the situation in Manipur became tense. A night curfew was also
imposed in several tense mountainous districts, including Imphal West,
Bishnupur, Jiribam, Tenugopal, and Churachandpur, as a result of clashes,
attacks, and counterattacks between various communities and the burning of
homes and businesses that followed the rally.
Application of Article 355 in Manipur
Given this comprehension of Article 355 and the range of
its application, it is crucial to think about whether the Union government can
independently apply the article in a particular situation. In the past, courts
have determined whether or not a piece of legislation is constitutional by
examining the obligation placed on the Union government by Article 355 of the
Constitution. This
contains the cases of Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005) [iii]and
Naga People’s Human Rights Movement v. Union of India (1997).[iv]
According to the ruling in the S.R. Bommai v. Union of
India [v],
the Union government cannot use Article 355 as a means to interfere in matters
that fall under the jurisdiction of state governments. The article’s obligation
to the Union government, as explained by Justice Sawant, should not be seen as
a stand-alone source of authority to obstruct state government operations.
Instead, it should only justify the imposition of Articles 356 and 357 in
extreme situations. The article suggests that this interpretation raises
questions about the application of Article 355 in situations like Manipur.
Even worse, how the Manipur implementation of Article 355
was announced to the public raises serious concerns. Article 355 had been “implemented”
in the State, which meant that it had been enforced, according to a tweet from
an elected MLA who was a member of the ruling party. The state police chief
then declared during a press conference that Article 355 had been implemented.
As of Saturday night, the Union government had not
officially ordered the imposition of Article 355 in Manipur. This raises two
possibilities: either the claims made by the responsible officials are false,
or Article 355 was imposed by the Union government without proper notification.
If the latter is the case, it could be seen as an illegal decision. Given the
potential implications for our democracy, it is important to closely follow the
developments in this case. According to experts, the Centre’s assistance in
helping a state government maintain peace and order is a standard procedure.”
Conclusion
Some suggestions:
Firstly, it is important to ensure that any actions taken
by the Union government or state government comply with the Indian Constitution
and the law. The application of Article 355 should not be used as a means to interfere
in matters that fall under the jurisdiction of state governments, as determined
by the Supreme Court in the S. R. Bommai case.
Secondly, it is important to promote transparency and
accountability in governance. If Article 355 was imposed in Manipur without
proper notification or legal basis, it could be seen as an illegal decision and
could have implications for our democracy. Therefore, it is important to
closely follow the developments in this case and ensure that any actions taken
by the government are lawful and transparent.
Finally, it is important to prioritize the safety and well-being of the people of Manipur. The Centre’s assistance in helping a state government maintain peace and order is a standard procedure, but it should be done in a way that respects human rights and avoids unnecessary harm to civilians. Any use of force should be proportional and necessary to achieve the legitimate aim of maintaining law and order.
Aishwarya Venkateshwaran is currently pursuing LL.M from DY Patil College of Law, University of Mumbai
Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author and not to the Jurisedge Academy.
For daily legal updates, follow our official Jurisedge channel on Instagram and LinkedIn and join our Telegram channel
Subscribe to our Law Exams Capsule India’s One and only Comprehensive Law Exam Preparation Journal
Readers may submit his/her blog for publication. Click Here to submit your Manuscript.
[i] Ahmedabad Mirror. “Emergency in Manipur after widespread riots.” Published on September 1, 2015. Retrieved from https://ahmedabadmirror.com/emergency-in-manipur-after-widespread-riots/81855986.html
[ii] Gulf News. “India: Article 355
invoked in Manipur; Army flag march underway, additional troops airlifted from
Assam”. May 7, 2023. Accessed May 7, 2023.
https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/india-article-355-invoked-in-manipur-army-flag-march-underway-additional-troops-airlifted-from-assam-1.95559740
[iii] Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union of India & Anr, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 131 of 2000, decided on July 12, 2005.
[iv] Naga People’s Movement for Human
Rights v. Union of India, (1998) 2 SCC 109, decided on November 27, 1997.
[v] S.R. Bommai v. Union of India,
(1994) 3 SCC 1, decided on March 11, 1994.
Related
Jurisedge Academy
Share post:
Exploring the Impact of Article 355 on Manipur: A Critical Analysis
Manipur High Court in Mutum Churamani Meetel v. State of Manipur, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 229/2023 ordered the State govt. to follow a 10-year-old recommendation to grant the non-tribal Meitei community Scheduled Tribe (ST) status precipitated recent turmoil in the State of Manipur. Reliable sources claim that the Centre has implemented Article 355 throughout the State to regulate the situation due to the current, unprecedented fire crisis.[i]
Article 355
It is a provision under Part XVIII of the Constitution, titled “Emergency Provisions”. Article 355 of the Indian Constitution is a provision that mandates the Union government to protect the states from external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the government of every State is carried out by the provisions of the Constitution. It empowers the Union to issue directions to the state governments to ensure compliance with these provisions. The objective of this article is to ensure the integrity and security of the nation by preventing any form of threat to the governance of the states.
The Indian Constitution’s Article 355 gives the Union government the authority to direct the state governments to enforce adherence to the Constitution’s rules. The use of this power is subject to some limitations, though. First off, only when the Union government is convinced that a specific state is not being administered in line with the Constitution’s provisions may it give such directives. This means that without any justification, the Union cannot give the state governments directives at will. Second, the Union government’s orders made by Article 355 must be intended to safeguard the nation from external aggression and internal unrest. This clause prohibits the Union from meddling in the domestic business of the state governments. Thirdly, the Federalist tenets and the cooperative spirit between the Union and the states must serve as the Union government’s compass when using this authority. When giving any instructions under this clause, the Union administration shall respect the states’ autonomy and work with them in consultation.
In conclusion, Article 355 gives the Union government the authority to instruct the state governments, but it also imposes limitations on this power’s use to protect the Indian Constitution’s federal structure.
The arguments in the constituent assembly reveal that the Constitution’s authors were worried about the misuse of the emergency measures in Part XVIII. Dr B. R. Ambedkar once said that the authority provided by Articles 355 and 356 should only be used sparingly. He said, “The proper thing we ought to expect is that such articles will never be called into operation and that they would remain a dead letter,” during a discussion of the constituent assembly in August 1949. I hope that the president, who has all of these powers, will take the necessary safeguards before really suspending the administration of the provinces if they are ever put into effect. It is recognized as a result that emergency measures may only be used in life-threatening circumstances. Hence Preventing authoritarian activities from New Delhi from using them arbitrarily. Citizens have the right to petition the courts to examine activities.
According to P. Doungel, Director General of the Manipur Police, Article 355 has been implemented throughout the State, enabling the federal government to take all necessary action to stabilize the situation and safeguard the lives and property of the populace. The police had claimed that several miscreants broke into a police station in the Bishnupur district and stole weapons and ammunition. He pleaded with them to restore the items before taking harsh action against them.[ii]“The situation in Manipur is expected to be brought under control in a day or two,” the DGP said. After hundreds of people participated in the Wednesday “Tribal Solidarity March” to reject the demand that the Meitei group be classified as a Scheduled Tribe (ST), the atmosphere became extremely tense. The Manipur government on Thursday permitted all District Magistrates, Sub-Divisional Magistrates, and all Executive Magistrates to issue “Shoot at sight orders” in exceptional circumstances due to the current scenario.
According to a defence spokesman, flag marches and aerial surveillance were carried out by Army and Assam Rifles forces in the Churachandpur district’s Khuga, Tampa, and Khomaujanbba area, the Imphal West district’s Mantripukhri, Lamphel, and Koeirangi area, and the Kakching district’s Sugnu. The Chief Minister appealed to the populace to uphold tranquilly and cooperation with the state government. As thousands of tribal people participated in a march organized by the All-Tribal Students Union of Manipur (ATSUM) in all 10 hill districts to protest the Meitei community’s demand to be included in the ST category, the situation in Manipur became tense. A night curfew was also imposed in several tense mountainous districts, including Imphal West, Bishnupur, Jiribam, Tenugopal, and Churachandpur, as a result of clashes, attacks, and counterattacks between various communities and the burning of homes and businesses that followed the rally.
Application of Article 355 in Manipur
Given this comprehension of Article 355 and the range of its application, it is crucial to think about whether the Union government can independently apply the article in a particular situation. In the past, courts have determined whether or not a piece of legislation is constitutional by examining the obligation placed on the Union government by Article 355 of the Constitution. This contains the cases of Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005) [iii]and Naga People’s Human Rights Movement v. Union of India (1997).[iv]
According to the ruling in the S.R. Bommai v. Union of India [v], the Union government cannot use Article 355 as a means to interfere in matters that fall under the jurisdiction of state governments. The article’s obligation to the Union government, as explained by Justice Sawant, should not be seen as a stand-alone source of authority to obstruct state government operations. Instead, it should only justify the imposition of Articles 356 and 357 in extreme situations. The article suggests that this interpretation raises questions about the application of Article 355 in situations like Manipur.
Even worse, how the Manipur implementation of Article 355 was announced to the public raises serious concerns. Article 355 had been “implemented” in the State, which meant that it had been enforced, according to a tweet from an elected MLA who was a member of the ruling party. The state police chief then declared during a press conference that Article 355 had been implemented.
As of Saturday night, the Union government had not officially ordered the imposition of Article 355 in Manipur. This raises two possibilities: either the claims made by the responsible officials are false, or Article 355 was imposed by the Union government without proper notification. If the latter is the case, it could be seen as an illegal decision. Given the potential implications for our democracy, it is important to closely follow the developments in this case. According to experts, the Centre’s assistance in helping a state government maintain peace and order is a standard procedure.”
Conclusion
Some suggestions:
Firstly, it is important to ensure that any actions taken by the Union government or state government comply with the Indian Constitution and the law. The application of Article 355 should not be used as a means to interfere in matters that fall under the jurisdiction of state governments, as determined by the Supreme Court in the S. R. Bommai case.
Secondly, it is important to promote transparency and accountability in governance. If Article 355 was imposed in Manipur without proper notification or legal basis, it could be seen as an illegal decision and could have implications for our democracy. Therefore, it is important to closely follow the developments in this case and ensure that any actions taken by the government are lawful and transparent.
Finally, it is important to prioritize the safety and well-being of the people of Manipur. The Centre’s assistance in helping a state government maintain peace and order is a standard procedure, but it should be done in a way that respects human rights and avoids unnecessary harm to civilians. Any use of force should be proportional and necessary to achieve the legitimate aim of maintaining law and order.
Aishwarya Venkateshwaran is currently pursuing LL.M from DY Patil College of Law, University of Mumbai
Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author and not to the Jurisedge Academy.
You can access Jurisedge Recent Legal News Archives and our Jurisedge Blog for legal updates from around the globe.
For daily legal updates, follow our official Jurisedge channel on Instagram and LinkedIn and join our Telegram channel
Subscribe to our Law Exams Capsule India’s One and only Comprehensive Law Exam Preparation Journal
Readers may submit his/her blog for publication. Click Here to submit your Manuscript.
[i] Ahmedabad Mirror. “Emergency in Manipur after widespread riots.” Published on September 1, 2015. Retrieved from https://ahmedabadmirror.com/emergency-in-manipur-after-widespread-riots/81855986.html
[ii] Gulf News. “India: Article 355 invoked in Manipur; Army flag march underway, additional troops airlifted from Assam”. May 7, 2023. Accessed May 7, 2023. https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/india-article-355-invoked-in-manipur-army-flag-march-underway-additional-troops-airlifted-from-assam-1.95559740
[iii] Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union of India & Anr, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 131 of 2000, decided on July 12, 2005.
[iv] Naga People’s Movement for Human Rights v. Union of India, (1998) 2 SCC 109, decided on November 27, 1997.
[v] S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1, decided on March 11, 1994.
Share this:
Related