Can Manipur Govt Be Restored When Legislators Still Can’t Cross ‘Borders’?
May 29, 2025
Empty coffins in Manipur’s Churachandpur district, placed to represent Kuki-Zo individuals killed in the violence. Photo: Vishal Arora
Ten legislators from the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) have reportedly demanded the restoration of a “popular government” in Manipur, citing the support of 44 MLAs and calling for an end to President’s Rule. Their demand comes even as the ground realities in the state—gripped by prolonged ethnic violence since May 3, 2023—remain unchanged. The central constitutional question is whether an elected government can be restored when one section of legislators remains physically and functionally excluded from the legislative process.
For over two year, Manipur has remained divided along ethnic lines, with the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities restricted to separate areas. Buffer zones continue to be maintained by central security forces to prevent clashes. Neither community can enter the other’s territory—not even high-ranking government officers, police personnel or members of the security establishment who belong to the opposite community.
This segregation also applies to the Manipur Legislative Assembly.
Ten of the MLAs in Manipur who are not part of the claimed group of 44 belong to the minority Kuki-Zo tribal community. They have been unable to attend any Assembly session since the violence began. No special arrangements have been made to ensure their safety or to enable their participation.
If President’s Rule is lifted now and an elected government is installed, this situation will continue. The Kuki-Zo legislators will still be unable to attend the Assembly or function as elected representatives. That calls into question the constitutional validity of any restored government.
Under Article 356(1) of the Constitution, President’s Rule can be imposed if the President is “satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.” This clause is the constitutional test for imposing President’s Rule.
President’s Rule was imposed in Manipur on Feb. 13, following the resignation of Chief Minister N. Biren Singh after his government lost its majority in the Assembly. However, when considering revocation, the President must be satisfied that the state can once again be governed in accordance with the Constitution. The wording of Article 356(1) makes it clear that the basis is not merely political stability or majority support in the Assembly, but the actual ability to carry out constitutional governance.
This interpretation was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the landmark case S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), where the Court made it clear that the President’s satisfaction under Article 356 is not beyond scrutiny. The Court held that the exercise of power must be limited by constitutional principles and is subject to judicial review.
The court held that the power conferred by Article 356 upon the President is a conditioned power. It is not an absolute power. The satisfaction may be formed on the basis of the report of the Governor or on the basis of other information received by him or both. The existence of relevant and material facts is a pre-condition to the formation of satisfaction.
This means the restoration of an elected government cannot be justified merely by citing numbers in the legislature. The government must be capable of upholding constitutional provisions, including fair representation, legislative functioning and the rule of law. If MLAs from the Kuki-Zo community still cannot attend Assembly sessions in the Meitei-dominant area of Imphal, the state capital, these conditions are not met.
Therefore, revoking President’s Rule in such circumstances would be constitutionally invalid and open to legal challenge.
Just days ago, on May 26, Manipur Governor Ajay Kumar Bhalla, the highest political authority in the state, had to be airlifted from Imphal airport to Raj Bhawan due to a law and order situation, as reported by The Indian Express.
Since the start of the ethnic violence, the state has witnessed at least 258 deaths, the destruction of thousands of homes, the displacement of tens of thousands of people and the looting of over 6,000 weapons from state armouries.
Worse, leaked audio recordings known as the “Manipur Tapes” have added to the gravity of the situation. In the recordings, former Chief Minister Singh is purportedly heard boasting about his alleged role in the ethnic violence. These tapes have been submitted to the Supreme Court. And a report from the independent Truth Labs Forensic Services concluded with over 93% certainty that the voice belongs to Singh. If state complicity in the violence is under investigation, would any role played by other MLAs also come under scrutiny? If Singh was indeed involved, did he really act alone?
So, the question is not whether a majority can be formed in the legislative assembly. The real questions are whether MLAs can safely participate in Assembly sessions, whether sessions are legitimate if an entire section of elected representatives remains absent due to genuine fears for their lives, and whether the executive can implement policy across both Meitei and Kuki-Zo areas.
You have just read a News Briefing by Newsreel Asia, written to cut through the noise and present a single story for the day that matters to you. Certain briefings, based on media reports, seek to keep readers informed about events across India, others offer a perspective rooted in humanitarian concerns and some provide our own exclusive reporting. We encourage you to read the News Briefing each day. Our objective is to help you become not just an informed citizen, but an engaged and responsible one.
