Article 355 of the Constitution of India imposes a duty upon the Union to protect States against external aggression and internal disturbance.
Article 355 postulates that it shall be the duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that every State government is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.
In consonance with Article 355 the Parliament of India enacted the: Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), 1958, which is an act that grants special powers to the Indian Armed Forces to maintain public order in “disturbed areas”.
According to a Report of the Committee, headed by Justice Jeevan Reddy, to Review the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act 1958 - Part II - Legal and Constitutional Aspects:
The Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958 empowered only the Governors of the States and the Administrators of the Union Territories to declare areas in the concerned State or the Union Territory as ‘disturbed’.
The reason for conferring such a power as per “Objects and Reasons’” appended to the Bill was that “Keeping in view the duty of the Union under Article 355 of the Constitution, interalia, to protect every State against internal disturbance, it is considered desirable that the Central government should also have power to declare areas as ‘disturbed’, to enable its armed forces to exercise the special powers”.
The territorial scope of the act also expanded to the seven states of the North-East - Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram.
In addition, the words “The Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958” were substituted by “Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958”, getting the acronym of: AFSPA, 1958.
It is even more interesting to observe the areas where the AFSPA is currently applicable:
AFSPA is now applicable fully only in 31 districts of four Northeast states and partially in 12 districts
In Manipur, the following areas had been designated as disturbed areas:
The Imphal East, Imphal West, Bishnupur, Thoubal, Jiribam, Kakching, Senapati, Ukhrul, Chandel, Churachandpur, Tamenglong, Kangpokpi, Tengnoupal, Kamjong, Noney, Pherzawl.
And subsequently, the incident showing two Kuki women being paraded naked by a mob occurred in B Phainom village in Kangpokpi district on May 4, 2023.
Therefore, what becomes clear is that the Constitutional provisions and the AFSPA, 1958 were put in place long before the incidents of violence in Manipur could even take place.
But what appears to be really disconcerting is that the Union Government remains silent on the breakdown of the constitutional machinery in the State of Manipur.
Contrastingly, the present Union Government is usually very swift and decisive in matters of constitutional importance and the same is evident upon going through a Press Release of the Press Information Bureau dated: 03rd Feb, 2021 and which was titled: ‘Impact of Abrogation of Article 370 On J&K’.
“After the constitutional changes and reorganization of the erstwhile State of Jammu-Kashmir, the Union territories of Jammu-Kashmir and Ladakh have been fully integrated into the mainstream of the nation.
As a result, all the rights enshrined in the Constitution of India and benefits of all the Central Laws that were being enjoyed by other citizens of the country are now available to the people of Jammu-Kashmir and Ladakh...
Empowerment of people, removal of unjust Laws, bringing in equity and fairness to those discriminated since ages who are now getting their due along with comprehensive development are few of the important changes that are ushering both the new Union Territories towards the path of peace and progress.”
And yet, here in the situation of Manipur, the BJP-led Union government had to be prompted by the honourable Supreme Court of India to take action.
The CJI of the Supreme Court while taking suo motu cognisance of the incident observed: “We are deeply disturbed by the video that emerged yesterday.”
“Visuals that have appeared in the media indicate gross constitutional violation and infraction of human rights,” remarked the Apex court, while adding that “use of women as instruments of violence in a charged atmosphere is unacceptable in a constitutional democracy”.
Now with regard to the Constitutional Guarantee of Fundamental Rights which the state Government of Manipur has to assure to its citizens, there appears to be systematic failure that is deep rooted in the communal intolerance that the State Government of Manipur demonstrates towards certain marginal groups in the State’s population.
In the event that the ethnic cleansing tendencies of the powerful tribe such as the ‘Meitei’ may be inflicted upon the minority tribe such as the ‘Kuki’ tribe, then the constitutional machinery in the state has apparently failed in its duty.
In such situations of turmoil, the Union Government would be obligated to impose Article 356 on the State of Manipur in order to prevent further breach of human rights in the State.
In the case of SR Bommai vs Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court of India made the following observations:
The verdict stated in no uncertain terms that the test of majority of the government should be done in the floor of the Assembly and is not subject to the Governor’s opinion;
In this case, there was no question of a constitutional amendment but even so, the concept of basic doctrine was applied;
The Supreme Court held that policies of a state government directed against an element of the basic structure of the Constitution would be a valid ground for the exercise of the central power under Article 356.
The Union government presently being led by the BJP ought to remind itself about the Godhra Riots (2002) and how the BBC Documentary (2023) which portrayed the then Chief Minister of Gujarat as a silent spectator to the mob lynching and mass looting in the state of Gujarat now finds itself sufficiently empowered to prevent any further breaches of human rights in the turbulent state of Manipur at present.
