Author: Payoshni Patil, Vasantrao Pawar law college, Baramati, Pune
Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/payoshni-patil-29b9572b8?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=android_app
To The Point
The Manipur Violence (2023–2024) signifies a major constitutional and humanitarian crisis, stemming from enduring ethnic conflicts between the Meitei and Kuki communities. What began as a dispute over Scheduled Tribe status evolved into widespread arson, murders, sexual violence, and large-scale displacements. More than 200 lives were claimed, and tens of thousands were forced to flee, as the state’s apparatus visibly disintegrated. This case study investigates how the violence revealed the deterioration of state accountability under Article 355, underscored severe infringements of fundamental rights as outlined in Articles 14, 19, and 21, and scrutinized the Union government’s sluggish response. It further evaluates the judiciary’s involvement, the media’s silence due to internet shutdowns, and the selective application of force. By examining legal structures and constitutional obligations, this study poses the question: Can a democracy remain passive when its citizens are deprived of safety, dignity, and a voice? This situation transcends a mere regional crisis — it serves as a litmus test for India’s dedication to human rights, the rule of law, and the integrity of federalism.
Use of Legal Jargon
The Manipur Violence (2023–2024) serves as a textbook case of constitutional breakdown and state failure, warranting scrutiny under Article 355 of the Indian Constitution, which imposes a duty on the A union established to safeguard each state from internal disruptions and to guarantee that governance adheres to constitutional regulations. The deliberate assaults, which encompassed widespread arson, murders, and gender-based violence, constituted serious infringements of essential rights, notably Article 14 (equality before the law), Article 19 (freedom of expression and movement), and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).The inaction of the state — its ref usual to intervene — rendered it a passive observer, consequently sparking debates regarding the positive responsibilities of the State to safeguard the lives and dignity of its citizens. Additionally, the internet shutdowns raised concerns regarding proportionality and procedural fairness, concepts grounded in the doctrine of proportionality upheld by the Indian judiciary (e.g., Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, 2020). The shutdowns effectively muted victims, limited media coverage, and stifled civil society, thereby violating due process and restricting access to justice.
In terms of state accountability, this situation reflects a dereliction of constitutional duty and invites the application of the public trust doctrine, where the state is seen as a trustee of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court’s remarks in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) further strengthen the state’s accountability for custodial violence and its failure to act against violations of rights. When state inaction facilitates targeted ethnic violence, it raises the question of constitutional morality and whether rule of law has been subordinated to political or ethnic majoritarianism. This crisis is not only a humanitarian emergency but a constitutional emergency in disguise — without formal proclamation.
The Proof
The Manipur ethnic violence that erupted on May 3, 2023, began after a “Tribal Solidarity March” organized by tribal groups to protest the Meitei community’s demand for Scheduled Tribe (ST) status. This demand raised fears among the Kuki-Zo and other tribal communities regarding the erosion of their constitutional safeguards under Article 371C and the Sixth Schedule. What began as a political and ethnic dispute rapidly intensified into a large-scale conflict, leading to more than 200 fatalities, the displacement of over 50,000 individuals, and the destruction of over 1,000 homes and 250 religious sites. The reports and viral footage depicting gender-based violence were particularly distressing, notably a widely shared video that showed two Kuki women being paraded naked and subjected to assault, which left the nation in shock. In spite of the gravity of the crisis, the governmental apparatus of Manipur did not respond in a timely or efficient manner. This prompted the Supreme Court of India to take Suo motu cognizance of the situation on July 20, 2023, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 4 of 2023.³ The Court described the situation as a “constitutional breakdown” and questioned the role and responsibility of the state. In its oral remarks, the bench observed, “We are deeply disturbed by the visuals. What has the state machinery been doing?”
The Court adopted a systematic and rights-oriented approach in its intervention. It allocated 11 sensitive cases related to sexual violence to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and oversaw the establishment of six Special Investigation Teams (SITs) led by senior police officials to probe additional serious offenses including murder, arson, and looting. In order to guarantee independent oversight, the Court established a three-member judicial committee chaired by Justice Gita Mittal (Retd.), which comprises Justices Shalini P. Joshi and Asha Menon, assigned to supervise relief initiatives, compensation, rehabilitation, and the thorough promotion of justice. Additionally, the Court mandated the classification of more than 6,500 FIRs into distinct categories—such as murder, rape, looting, and others—to enable organized investigation and expedite judicial proceedings.
During its hearings, the Supreme Court underscored the constitutional significance of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty as outlined in Article 21, highlighting that the dignity of women must not be compromised, even in areas of conflict. The Court made it clear that filing FIRs alone does not amount to justice, and inaction by the state would not be tolerated. Its strong stance in the Manipur case demonstrates the judiciary’s evolving role in addressing state failure, ensuring victim-centric justice, and setting a precedent in protecting human rights amid internal ethnic conflicts.
Abstract
The Manipur Violence Case of 2023–2024 serves as a stark illustration of a deep-rooted constitutional and humanitarian crisis that has emerged from escalating ethnic tensions between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities. This conflict is particularly significant given that it is taking place in Manipur, a sensitive border state located in Northeast India, where diverse ethnic groups coexist and historical grievances have often led to unrest. The situation highlights the urgent need for dialogue and resolution to address the underlying issues that have fuelled this violence, as well as the broader implications for governance and human rights in the region. The consequences were characterized by an unprecedented surge of violence, which included arson, the forced relocation of over 50,000 people, more than 200 deaths, and a disturbing display of gender-based violence, notably underscored by a viral video showing two tribal women being stripped, paraded naked, and assaulted. In response to the total failure of the administrative system, the Supreme Court of India initiated Suo motu cognizance of the matter through Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 4 of 2023, describing it as a situation of “constitutional breakdown.” Acknowledging the serious violations of human rights, the Court mandated the transfer of 11 significant cases related to sexual violence to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), while also instructing the establishment of 42 Special Investigation Teams (SITs) to investigate the other serious crimes. A three-member judicial committee was also formed, chaired by Justice Gita Mittal (Retd.), to oversee the processes related to compensation, relief, and rehabilitation. This case represents a significant judicial progress in comprehending the obligations of the state during periods of internal conflict. It highlights the significance of protecting the rights of minority groups, advocating for gender justice, and maintaining the rule of law. This decision strengthens the notion that governments bear a vital duty to safeguard vulnerable communities and guarantee fair treatment for every individual, irrespective of their background or identity.
Case Law
1. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras (IACtHR, 1988):
This landmark case established that states have a duty to prevent, investigate, and punish human rights violations, even if committed by non-state actors. The Inter-American Court held Honduras internationally responsible for enforced disappearances due to its failure to act. In the context of Manipur, this supports the argument that the Indian state has a constitutional and human rights obligation to prevent ethnic violence and protect all communities, regardless of whether the perpetrators are state actors or non-state actors.
2. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (SC, 1997):
This case reiterated the right to life under Article 21 and the responsibility of the state to ensure fundamental rights are upheld even during internal disturbances. The Court condemned state inaction in cases of extrajudicial killings. In relation to Manipur, it reinforces that prolonged inaction or complicity by security forces or state agencies can amount to constitutional violations of life, liberty, and dignity of the affected populations.
3. Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh (SC, 2011):
The Supreme Court ruled that arming civilian vigilantes in Maoist-affected areas was unconstitutional and a failure of the state to uphold the rule of law. It declared that state responsibility includes preventing privatized or community-led violence. Applied to Manipur, this case shows that the use or tolerance of militia-like civilian groups or failure to disarm armed mobs violates constitutional protections and constitutes a failure of governance.
Conclusion
The Manipur Violence of 2023–2024 represents not just a tragic instance of ethnic conflict but serves as a significant indictment of constitutional inadequacies, governmental indifference, and a regression in human rights within a democratic framework. The magnitude and severity of the violence, the deliberate targeting of atrocities, and the evident failure of the state to maintain order have highlighted serious deficiencies in the enforcement of constitutional provisions under Articles 14, 19, and 21, as well as the Union’s obligations under Article 355.
This analysis indicates that the judiciary has become the final stronghold of constitutional integrity, intervening to protect the rights and dignity of individuals let down by both political resolve and administrative effectiveness. The Supreme Court’s intervention—through suo motu actions, directives for CBI investigations, and the establishment of a judicial oversight committee—has reaffirmed the judiciary’s role as the defender of fundamental rights and a steward of constitutional governance.
However, these judicial remedies, while crucial, cannot replace the proactive duties of the state. The reference to landmark cases such as Velásquez Rodríguez, PUCL, and Nandini Sundar emphasizes the necessity for adherence to both international and domestic legal standards during periods of internal strife. The state’s silence or complicity in the face of targeted ethnic violence not only breaches constitutional responsibilities but also undermines public confidence in the institutions designed to provide protection.
In summary, the crisis in Manipur calls for a national reflection: Is it possible for a constitutional democracy to retain its legitimacy while segments of its population suffer from unchecked violence and systemic neglect? If India is to honour the values enshrined in its Constitution—justice, equality, dignity, and the rule of law—it must ensure that such crises are neither repeated nor ignored. The violence occurring in Manipur goes beyond a mere regional concern; it serves as a constitutional plea for moral consciousness. The resolution will determine whether the principles of Indian democracy are merely aspirational ideals or if they can truly be manifested as practical realities.
FAQS
1. What caused the Manipur Violence in 2023?
The outbreak of violence commenced on May 3, 2023, following a “Tribal Solidarity March” that opposed the Meitei community’s request for Scheduled Tribe (ST) status. Tribal factions expressed concerns over the potential loss of constitutional protections, which ignited an ethnic conflict between the Meitei and Kuki communities.
2. What fundamental rights were violated during the violence?
The violence led to mass killings, displacement, and gender-based atrocities, violating key rights under Article 14 (equality), Article 19 (freedom of expression and movement), and Article 21 (right to life and dignity).
3. How did the Supreme Court respond to the crisis?
Taking Suo motu cognizance, the Supreme Court termed it a “constitutional breakdown.” It assigned key cases to the CBI, formed SITs, and established a judicial committee led by Justice Gita Mittal to oversee relief and investigation.
4. What constitutional duties were neglected by the state and central governments?
The article argues that both governments failed their duties under Article 355, which mandates the Union to protect states from internal disturbances and uphold constitutional governance during crises.
5. Why is this case significant for Indian constitutional law?
The Manipur violence case underscores the erosion of rule of law, the dangers of state inaction, and sets a judicial precedent for enforcing accountability during ethnic and internal conflicts in a constitutional democracy.
