Manipur Under President’s Rule: Why the Center is in a Tight Spot as the One-Year Deadline Looms

Under the Indian Constitution, extending President's Rule beyond one year isn't a simple administrative "check-the-box" task. It involves rigorous legal hurdles that are currently putting the spotlight back on Article 356 and the restoration of democracy in the Northeast.

The Numbers Game: Manipur’s History with Article 356

While Jammu & Kashmir holds the record for the most days under central control, Manipur holds a different, perhaps more troubling, record.

• Most Frequent Use: Manipur has seen President's Rule imposed 11 times since 1953, the highest for any Indian state.

• Political Shifts: Statistically, in nearly two-thirds of cases nationwide, the ruling party changes once President's Rule is lifted.

• Duration: Punjab follows J&K in terms of total days, but Manipur’s frequent instability highlights a recurring breakdown of constitutional machinery.

Why the One-Year Mark is a Legal "Dead End"

According to the provisions of the Indian Constitution, President's Rule is initially granted for six months. It can be extended for another six months with parliamentary approval. However, to cross the one-year threshold, two specific conditions must be met under Article 356:

1. National Emergency: A National Emergency (Article 352) must be in operation in the whole of India or the specific state.

2. ECI Certification: The Election Commission of India (ECI) must certify that holding general elections to the Legislative Assembly is difficult due to the prevailing situation.

Currently, India is not under a National Emergency. Therefore, unless the ECI officially declares that Manipur is too unstable for elections, the Center has no legal choice but to restore the state government or conduct polls.

The Role of the Governor and Article 365

The imposition of President’s Rule in Manipur usually stems from a report by the Governor stating that the state cannot be governed according to constitutional provisions.

Interestingly, Article 365 provides another trigger: if a state fails to comply with directions from the Center, the President can deem it a failure of constitutional machinery. In Manipur's case, the prolonged ethnic violence and the inability of the local administration to maintain order made the transition to central rule inevitable a year ago.

The "S.R. Bommai" Shield

The misuse of Article 356 has been a point of contention in Indian politics for decades. However, the landmark S.R. Bommai Case (1994) changed the game. The Supreme Court ruled that:

• The President’s proclamation is subject to judicial review.

• The court can examine if the decision was based on "malafide intention" (bad faith).

• The state assembly should only be dissolved after Parliament approves the proclamation, not before.

This means the Center cannot indefinitely keep Manipur under its thumb without facing judicial scrutiny, especially if the "malafide" argument is raised by the opposition.

What Lies Ahead for Manipur?

As the February 13 deadline nears, the "binding" nature of the law forces a decision. The Center must either facilitate the return of a popular government or present a compelling case to the ECI regarding the security situation. For the people of Manipur, the end of President's Rule represents a hope for the return of local representation and a move toward long-term peace.