President’s Rule in Manipur: Political Crisis & Constitutional Impact

Manipur has come under President’s Rule following the resignation of Chief Minister N. Biren Singh and the BJP’s failure to appoint a successor. The ongoing ethnic conflict between Meiteis and Kukis since May 2023 has further destabilized the state. The Centre imposed Article 356 as the state assembly failed to reconvene before the constitutional deadline of February 12, 2025. This move suspends the state government, placing administration under the Governor’s control. The decision aims to restore governance and law and order in the conflict-ridden state.

Ethnic violence between Meiteis and Kukis erupted in May of 2023 causing state governance to face instability because of the situation. Under these circumstances, the Centre took charge of direct governance while the state assembly operation remained under suspension. The Supreme Court investigation of leaked audio connecting Singh affected the imposition of the President's Rule. The President's Rule was established because the state failed to assemble the assembly before February 12, 2025, to restore both administrative leadership and constitutional governance in Manipur.

Background of the Situation in Manipur

• The ongoing ethnic conflict between the Meitei and Kuki people started in May 2023 in Manipur.

• More than 250 people lost their lives and thousands of people needed relocation during continued fighting between the groups.

• The state government proved incapable of reinstating order throughout the region which resulted in governmental instability.

Events Leading to President’s Rule

• Chief Minister N. Biren Singh stepped down from power on February 9, 2025, due to mounting political weight.

• The lack of agreement among BJP legislators regarding a new chief minister created a space in state governance.

• The state assembly had to resume its session per Article 174(1) which ended most recently on August 12 2024 by February 12, 2025.

• The President enforced Article 356 and imposed governance by Presidential Rule because the state assembly failed to convene and demonstrate proper governance.

Constitutional Provisions for President’s Rule

• Article 356: The president has the power to assume state governance responsibilities when it becomes clear that the constitutional framework has collapsed (Article 356).

• Article 365: Article 365 authorizes the President of India to take presidential rule in a state that does not follow Union directions.

• Article 355: The Indian Constitution through Article 355 requires the Union government to protect states from civil unrest and foreign security threats.

Grounds for Imposing President’s Rule in Manipur

• The state administration failed to carry out its government duties appropriately.

• The BJP members were unable to select a new CM after Biren Singh moved away from his position.

• Political instability occurs because different political parties cannot find an agreement resulting in a prolonged impasse.

Implementation and Duration of President’s Rule

• The government implements the President’s Rule for six months which extends to three years through periodic parliamentary approval.

• The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act (1978) limits extension beyond one year unless:

• A National Emergency remains active at present.

• The Election Commission makes a certification to confirm elections are impossible to conduct.

Impact of President’s Rule in Manipur

• When the Governor acts as President's representative the state government administration transitions to his control.

• Under these circumstances the state legislative assembly faces shutdown and the parliament assumes its full legislative power.

• Under this situation, Parliament takes control to create laws that direct the state.

• A system of administration under the Governor is conducted through Government officials appointed by the central government.

Supreme Court Rulings on President’s Rule

• S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (1994): The Supreme Court of India ruled during S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (1994) that presidential governance remains eligible for testing in court while federal authorities lack independent authority to implement it without clear reason.

• Rameshwar Prasad Case (2006): The government must demonstrate valid reasons when it uses the presidential authority to declare the President's Rule according to the Rameshwar Prasad Case in 2006.

Key Recommendations on President’s Rule

• Sarkaria Commission (1983):

  • The invocation of Article 356 represents a final option for the government.

  • A warning system needs to exist which requires the central government to inform state administrations before implementing President's Rule.

• Punchhi Commission (2010):

  • Article 356 should only be implemented in specific areas of a state instead of applying the provision to the whole territory.

Criticism of President’s Rule

• The power of interference has frequently been misused by government parties to remove state governing bodies that hold alternative political positions.

• Centralization of power through Federalism weakens the self-governance capacity of states.

• The practice of President’s Rule leads to the removal of elected politicians from power.

Conclusion

• The disorder in Manipuri politics alongside ethnic conflict made President’s Rule both necessary and appropriate.

• The financing system triggers problems for both federalism and state government capabilities to manage domestic disorders.

• The Centre must work to ensure free democratic elections followed by an immediate return to democratic government practice.