Context:
The recent violence in Manipur demands greater efforts towards the restoration of peace and stability. Amid growing violence, there is a significant call for the invocation of Article 355, which allows the Union government to intervene to protect states from internal disturbances.
Article 355: It shall be the duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the Government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
Relevance: GS 2 (Polity and Governance ), GS3 (Internal Security )
Practice question: What are the constitutional provisions for managing internal disturbances in India? Discuss the role of Article 355 in maintaining law and order, with a special focus on the recent situation in Manipur. (250 words)
Manipur crisis :
- Began in May 2023, an ethnic conflict between the majority Meitei community and the minority Kuki-Zo community.
- The conflict arose over the Meitei demand for Scheduled Tribe status, which the Kuki-Zo community opposed.
- The violence has led to over 221 deaths and displaced 60,000 people as of May 2024.
Federalism and Special Provisions
- Federalism plays a key role in managing India’s cultural, social and political diversities. Several states, including Manipur, have special provisions under the Constitution. In Manipur’s case, Article 371C creates a Hill Area Committee, but it lacks strong enforcement mechanisms compared to the Sixth Schedule.
Case Study: Sikkim (Article 371F)
- When Sikkim acceded to India in 1975, Article 371F was introduced to provide “special provisions” aimed at protecting the rights and interests of different sections of the population such as the Bhutia-Lepcha community
- Article 371F(g) granted the Governor special responsibilities to ensure equitable socio-economic advancement for different sections of Sikkim’s population, thereby institutionalising power-sharing and cultural autonomy.
- This provision was challenged in R.C. Poudyal’s (1993) case, where the Supreme Court upheld Article 371F, highlighting the historical context and unique needs of the Bhutia-Lepcha community and justified their increased representation in the state legislature.
Case Study: Tripura (Sixth Schedule and Tripura Accord 1988)
- Tripura’s tribal areas are governed by the Sixth Schedule, which devolves power to District and Regional councils for autonomy over land, education, and customs.
- The Tripura Accord of 1988 was signed between the Union government, the state government, and the Tripura National Volunteers (TNV)—a militant group that sought secession. The Accord reserved one-third of the State Assembly seats for Scheduled Tribes, even beyond their proportional share.
- The Supreme Court, in Subrata Acharjee (2002), upheld this reservation under Article 332(3B). It was a justified measure to provide tribal communities a “greater share” in governance.
Representation and Governance (Article 332(3) and Article 170)
- Article 332(3B), inserted as part of the Tripura Accord, allowed for reserved seats in the State Assembly beyond proportional representation and it is compatible with Article 332(3) (which outlines seat reservations for Scheduled Castes and Tribes) and Article 170 (which deals with the composition of Legislative Assemblies).
Challenges in Manipur (Manipur Hill Areas Autonomous District Council Act, 2000)
- Unlike Tripura, Manipur is not governed by the Sixth Schedule, but by Article 371C and the Manipur Hill Areas Autonomous District Council Act, 2000. This Act mandates the creation of District Councils, with membership based on Scheduled Tribe classifications.
- However, unlike the Sixth Schedule states, these District Councils lack the veto power held by tribal groups in states like Nagaland, Sikkim, and Tripura. This lack of legislative safeguards worsens tensions over representation, resource allocation, and governance in Manipur.
Role of the Judiciary in Reconciling Differences
- Through cases like R.C. Poudyal (1993) and Subrata Acharjee (2002), The courts have acknowledged that historical considerations justify deviations from strict constitutional norms, reiterating that accommodations and adjustments are necessary for maintaining political stability in regions like the northeast.
Conclusion
While the Indian Constitution has shown adaptability in highlighting diversities, Manipur’s current constitutional provisions are insufficient for addressing identity-based conflicts. A more nuanced approach like Sikkim and Tripura, is needed to achieve lasting peace and inclusive governance.
