Source: The Hindu 

Introduction 

The Manipur crisis where violence erupted in May 2023 and continues to cause devastation. It argues that this situation represents a clear case where Article 356 of the Indian Constitution should be invoked, allowing the President to take control when a state's constitutional machinery has failed. The violence has led to widespread chaos, deaths, and displacement of people, making it different from other instances of unrest in India's history. 

What was the Issue in Manipur? 

• The state has been experiencing severe ethnic violence since May 2023, which has resulted in over 250 deaths and forced more than 100,000 people to flee their homes. 
• Unlike other states that faced insurgency issues (like Nagaland and Mizoram), Manipur's situation is unique because ordinary civilians are both victims of violence and forced to engage in violence for self-protection. 
• The violence has led to widespread destruction of temples, churches, homes, and other properties, showing a complete breakdown of law and order. 
• Despite 27 Supreme Court hearings and various government interventions, the violence continues uncontrollably, with recent incidents including rape and murder of civilians. 
• The state's constitutional machinery has effectively failed, with the government unable to protect its citizens' fundamental rights to life, liberty, dignity, and peace. 
• The situation is particularly concerning because it affects all three million residents of Manipur and represents a breakdown of basic constitutional guarantees. 
• Neither the central government under the Prime Minister nor the state government has been able to effectively control the situation or bring about peace and harmony. 
• The Supreme Court's intervention and monitoring, including specific orders about preventing violence and protecting women, the situation remains volatile with continued incidents of violence. 

What is the Court Order on the Manipur Matter? 

• On 8^th May, 2023, in response to a Public Interest Litigation, the Supreme Court initially recorded the Solicitor General's statement that violence had decreased, and the situation was "gradually returning to normalcy." 
• The Court observed the critical need to preserve law and order and specifically focused on providing relief and rehabilitation to affected people. 
• The Court directed that "utmost vigil should be maintained" to ensure there is no recurrence of violence in the state. 
• In July 2023, the Court took suo motu notice of a particularly disturbing incident where women were paraded naked by a mob on May 4. 
• The Court expressed being "deeply disturbed" by the media visuals, noting that they indicated "gross constitutional violations and infractions of human rights." 
• The Court strongly condemned the use of women as instruments for perpetrating violence, stating it was "simply unacceptable in a constitutional democracy." 
• The Court demanded information about two specific aspects:  
  • Steps taken to hold the perpetrators accountable 
  • Measures implemented to prevent such incidents from recurring 

Why is Manipur's Situation Proving to Be Different? 

• Unlike other states, Manipur is experiencing unprecedented continuous violence among common civilians, making it distinct from traditional insurgency or terrorism-related conflicts. 
• While states like Nagaland and Mizoram faced insurgencies in the past, and Jammu & Kashmir continues to face terrorism, Manipur's situation is unique because it involves civilian-to-civilian violence. 
• The most disturbing aspect is that ordinary citizens are not just victims but are being forced to engage in violence for self-protection, creating a cycle of violence. 
• The situation reflects a complete breakdown of state machinery, where the government has failed to protect its citizens' basic liberties and maintain law and order. 
• The constitutional crisis in Manipur represents what the Constituent Assembly members like K. Santhanam described as a "physical breakdown of the Government in the State." 
• Article 355 obliging the Union government to assist states in such situations, the central government's interventions have been unsuccessful in controlling the violence. 
• President od India, being conscious of her constitutional duties, has the power and responsibility to intervene in this unique situation where normal administrative machinery has completely failed. 
• The situation matches what Thakur Das Bhargava described in the Constituent Assembly - where "the entire machinery has failed, and ordinary people do not enjoy common liberties." 

What is Article 356 of Indian Constitution? 

• About: 
  • Article 356 of Indian Constitution deals with Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in States. 
• Basic Trigger [Article 356(1)]:  
  • The President can impose President's Rule if satisfied, either based on Governor's report or otherwise, that the state government cannot function according to constitutional provisions. 
• Presidential Powers [Article 356(1)(a),(b),(c)]: 
  • Can assume all functions of State Government 
  • Can declare Parliament's authority over State Legislature 
  • Can make necessary provisions to implement the proclamation 
  • However, cannot interfere with High Court's powers (Proviso to 356(1)) 
• Modification Power [Article 356(2)]:  
  • The President can revoke or modify the proclamation through a subsequent proclamation. 
• Parliamentary Approval [Article 356(3)]: 
  • Must be laid before both Houses of Parliament 
  • Expires after two months unless approved by both Houses 
  • Special provisions exist if Lok Sabha is dissolved (Proviso to 356(3)) 
• Duration [Article 356(4)]: 
  • After parliamentary approval, the proclamation remains valid for six months from its issue date. 
  • Extension Mechanism [Article 356(4) First Proviso]: 
    • Can be extended for additional six-month periods 
    • Requires approval from both Houses of Parliament 
    • Cannot normally exceed three years in total 
• Special Circumstances [Article 356(5)]:  
  • For extension beyond one year: 
    • Emergency must be in operation 
    • Election Commission must certify difficulties in holding state elections 
• State Legislature Status [Article 356(1)(b)]:  
  • State Legislature's powers become exercisable by or under Parliament's authority. 
• Punjab Exception [Article 356(4) Third Proviso]:  
  • Special case of Punjab (1987) where the three-year limit was extended to five years. 
• Safeguards [Article 356(1) Proviso & 356(3)]: 
  • High Courts remain independent 
  • Regular parliamentary oversight required 
  • Time-bound implementation 
  • Requires democratic validation through Parliament 

Conclusion 

The situation in Manipur has become increasingly dire, with over 250 deaths and more than 100,000 people displaced from their homes. Despite multiple Supreme Court hearings and government interventions, the violence continues unabated. Ruling government has failed to take decisive action to stop the carnage. It concludes that while Article 356 has been misused in the past, its implementation in Manipur's case would be widely supported given the severe breakdown of law and order.