Manipur reinforces importance of governance over litigation for lasting solutions

A political approach and inclusive solutions can help resolve the crisis in Manipur by addressing competing claims and grievances.

Wreckage of buildings that were set on fire and vandalised by mobs in Khumujamba village on the outskirts of Churachandpur on May 9. The town has seen extensive violence between the Meitei and Kuki tribes. | Photo Credit: ARUN SANKAR/AFP

Seeking Scheduled Tribe status for the Meitei is an issue that has been brewing for a few years now and petitions have been pending in court. In 2013, the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs had written to the Manipur government seeking its recommendation for the grant of Scheduled Tribe status to the Meitei. But the State did not act. Subsequently, some members of the Meitei Tribal Union filed a petition in the High Court seeking its intervention with the State government in the matter. The petitioners’ claim was that the Meitei community was considered a “tribe among tribes” before the merger of the State with the Indian Union on September 21, 1949, and that this status should be restored.

Finally, on March 27 this year, Justice Muralidaran, the acting Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court, directed the government of Manipur to consider the issue of the “inclusion of Meetei/Meitei Community in the Scheduled Tribe list”. This order proved controversial and became the proverbial last straw, with a severe impact on the tensions already simmering in the State.

Politically and legally questionable

The High Court direction is politically and legally questionable. The conflict among the different communities in Manipur is a harsh reality. It is essentially a fissure based on claims for better participation in the political process and for more control over resources. It required a political solution which could have happened only by way of a deliberative process and the resultant policies. The court is not the forum to resolve such a complex problem.

Legally, the High Court totally ignored the basic provision on this point, namely, Article 342 of the Constitution. This mandate was explained categorically by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs Milind (2000). Article 342(1) says that it is for the President to notify the list of Scheduled Tribes in each State. Once notified, according to Article 342(2), only Parliament can “include in or exclude from the list of scheduled tribes” specified in the presidential order. Therefore, it is clear that a State government has no authority to consider a plea for labelling a community as a Scheduled Tribe.

It was Dr B.R. Ambedkar who introduced the provision in the Constitution. It had a specific purpose. While moving for the incorporation of the provision which was 300(B) in the draft Constitution (along with 300 (A) pertaining to Scheduled Caste), Dr Ambedkar said: “Once a notification has been issued by the President… if any elimination was to be made from the list so notified or any addition was to be made, that must be made by the Parliament and not by the President. The object is to eliminate any kind of political factors having a play in the matter of the disturbance in the Schedule so published by the President” (Constituent Assembly Debates, September 17, 1949).

Justice Muralidaran’s order lost sight of this principle, which was elaborated by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Milind. In Milind, the court clarified that “the power to include or exclude, amend or alter presidential order is expressly and exclusively conferred on and vested with the Parliament and that too by making a law in that regard”. According to the court, Parliament is more equipped to know about the need for addition or deletion of tribes and it has “the means and machinery” to examine such issues. The court also said that “allowing State governments or courts or other authorities or tribunals to hold enquiry” into such claims “may lead to problems”.

Going by the scheme of the Constitution, Justice Muralidaran’s order is thus plainly untenable. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud came down heavily on it, as has been widely reported. However, by way of an order on May 17, 2023, the Supreme Court said that “since the writ appeal is pending before the Division Bench [of the High Court], we leave it open to the parties who are aggrieved by the order of single judge to make appropriate submissions before the Division Bench in that regard”.

Burnt remains of the godown of Manipur Public Heath Engineering Department Minister L. Susindro Meitei after it was set ablaze by a mob at Chingarel in Imphal East district on June 24. | Photo Credit: PTI

A bench of Justice Muralidaran has since admitted a petition seeking to review his March 27 order, which is widely believed to be the cause of the present violence and anarchy in Manipur.

The litigation for Scheduled Tribe status reflects certain complex realities of the State. Reservation in the Indian context has been an affirmative action towards equality, by uplifting those groups who are historically exploited and discriminated against.

Through the years, the demands for reservation have been a perpetual political slogan for many communities. There have been mass movements for reservation and sometimes for abolition of reservation for others. The agitations after the Mandal Commission Report are illustrative of this.

Highlights

• On March 27 this year, Justice Muralidaran, the acting Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court, directed the government of Manipur to consider the issue of the “inclusion of Meetei/Meitei Community in the Scheduled Tribe list”.
• This order proved controversial and became the proverbial last straw, with a severe impact on the tensions already simmering in the State.
• The solution lies in understanding the issues from a political angle and evolve solutions that reasonably address the competing claims and grievances of everyone concerned.

The issue of reservation

In the Manipur scenario, the issue of reservation (or not granting it) is extremely complex as it is closely linked with control over land. The co-existence of the three dominant communities—Meitei, Kuki, and Naga—presents immense challenges on account of measures such as the tribal policy, which injuncts the Meitei from owning or enjoying property in the hilly area. Their non-tribal status has thus fenced them out of about 90 per cent of the territorial area known as the hills in the State.

This deprivation motivated them to demand Scheduled Tribe status. In the peculiar context of Manipur, even the issue of reservation as Scheduled Tribe for representation in government service or elections has been only secondary. The tribal status is demanded more as a device intended to assert rights over the land. On the other hand, the tribes in the hills are apprehensive of losing their exclusive domain over the highlands. These economic reasons are linked with the insurgency, which is not limited to any one community.

The litigation in the matter is likely to continue, though the law on the point is well settled. As this article goes to press, the tension has not subsided and the divide among the communities continues. The house of a Union Minister was set on fire in Imphal. Arson and attacks continue and the State is literally boiling.

Justice M.V. Muralidaran, acting Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court. | Photo Credit: By Special Arrangement

The Manipur Tribal Forum exposed the falsity of the Centre’s claim of restoring peace in the State. In an interlocutory application filed before the apex court, the forum lamented: “The assurances of the authorities are not useful anymore and made in a non-serious fashion and are not even intended to be implemented. The reason why this hon’ble court ought not to rely anymore on the empty assurances given by Union of India (UOI) is because both the UOI and the Chief Minister of the State have embarked jointly on a communal agenda for the ethnic cleansing of the Kukis” (Bar and Bench, June 15, 2023). This shows the dissatisfaction among the Kukis about the present state of affairs.

The point, therefore, is to understand the issues from a political angle and evolve solutions that reasonably address the grievances of all concerned and to restore peace and harmony. Pradip Phanjoubam, Editor of Imphal Review of Arts and Politics, says that the people’s perception is that “the State government is clueless and the Central government lacks commitment” (The New Indian Express, March 16, 2023).

The Prime Minister’s silence

The total collapse of the rule of law in Manipur is perpetuated by the egregious silence of those at the helm of affairs. The Prime Minister’s refusal to comment on Manipur or meet the opposition leaders of the State to discuss the situation shows a total lack of responsibility and statesmanship. A political combination that does not believe in the idea of constitutional fraternity cannot showcase good governance, which alone can mitigate the tension, if not eliminate it altogether.

The Constitution, in practical terms, is all about good governance. It is antithetical to the ideology of divisiveness and conflict. There is no democracy without peace, and no peace without justice. It may be possible to win elections by divisive methods, yet one cannot govern a State or even the country for long with such “tactical” measures.

We need to redefine the idea of constitutional fraternity in the specific context of the state. Dr Ambedkar famously said that there is no democracy without fraternity. The prevailing situation in the State amply illustrates the correctness of this vision.

The tragedy in Manipur is that all the agitating groups have lost faith in governments. As such, a status quo approach cannot resolve the crisis. As this story was going to press, an all-party meeting, convened by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, began in New Delhi on June 24 to discuss the prevailing situation in Manipur. Leaders of the BJP, the Congress, the Trinamool Congress, the Left parties, and others are taking part. The Centre should take the issue seriously and initiate remedial steps based on the suggestions that emerge from the meeting. The Union has a constitutional duty to keep the States in order. Manipur is the victim of governmental inaction. The crisis needs an imaginative, compassionate, and pragmatic resolution.

The litigation on the tribal claims of the Meitei and the opposition to it are only a fragile offshoot of the defenestration of both communities from a dignified life—both private and public—as promised by the country’s Constitution. In such a scenario, litigation is a poor substitute for governance.

Kaleeswaram Raj is a lawyer at the Supreme Court of India.