The recent violence in Manipur has reignited debate on Centre-State relations and the use of emergency provisions.

• Constitutional Basis: Articles 355 and 356, located in Part XVIII of the Indian Constitution (from Article 352 to 360) define the roles of the Centre and State governments during emergencies.
• Article 355: Mandates that the Centre protect States from external and internal disturbances (internal crises) and ensure that State governments operate constitutionally.
• Article 356: Allows imposition of President’s rule in a State when its government is unable to function according to the Constitution, thus enabling the Centre to assume control directly.

India is a federation with governments at the Centre and the States. The Seventh Schedule to the Indian Constitution distributes the power between the Union and the States.

• ''Police'' and ''Public Order'' are State subjects under the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, and therefore, it is the primary duty of the State Governments to prevent, detect, register and investigate crime and prosecute the criminals.

Emergency Provision Apply to the Situation in Manipur

• Severity of the Crisis: The widespread violence in Manipur, including attacks on civilians and the looting of police armouries, indicates that the situation surpasses a typical breakdown of law and order.
• This severity suggests that the circumstances might justify the invocation of emergency provisions.
• Non-Imposition of President’s Rule: Despite the critical nature of the violence, the President’s rule under Article 356 has not been imposed.
• The non-application of Article 356 raises concerns about whether political factors are affecting the response to the crisis.
• Application of Article 355: The Centre has been taking steps under Article 355, which requires it to ensure that States are protected and governed constitutionally.
• However, critics argue that the actions so far may not be sufficient to address the scale of the crisis effectively.
• The application of Article 355 in this case highlights the need for more decisive measures to restore order and address the ongoing violence.

Judgements Regarding the Articles 355 and 356

• Historical Misuse: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, a key architect of the Indian Constitution, hoped that Articles 355 and 356 would remain unused and become "dead letters."
• Despite this intention, Article 356 has been misused on several occasions, leading to the dismissal of elected State governments under various pretexts, including political motivations and law and order issues.
• S R Bommai Case, 1994: This landmark Supreme Court of India judgement significantly restricted the misuse of Article 356. The Court ruled that President’s rule should be imposed only in cases of a breakdown of constitutional machinery, not merely for law and order issues.
• It also established that such impositions are subject to judicial review, ensuring that Article 356 is not used for political purposes.
• The Supreme Court stated that the breakdown of constitutional machinery meant that carrying out administration in a state was a genuine impossibility, not a simple hardship.
• Expansion of Article 355: While Article 356 faced judicial restrictions, the scope of Article 355 has been expanded. Initially, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 355 was narrow, often linking it to the employment of Article 356.
• However, in cases like Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights Vs Union of India, 1998, Sarbananda Sonowal Vs Union of India, 2005, and H.S. Jain Vs Union of India, 1997, the Court broadened the interpretation.
• The revised view allows the Union to take a wider range of actions to protect States and ensure their governance aligns with constitutional principles.

Recommendations Regarding Article 355 and Article 356

• Sarkaria Commission (1987): This Commission headed by Justice Ranjeet Singh Sarkaria recommended that Article 356 be used very cautiously, only in the rarest of rare scenarios and as a last remedy after exhausting all possible alternatives to resolve and avert any circumstance where the constitutional machinery has collapsed in a state.
• National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002) and Punchhi Commission (2010): Have opined that Article 355 imposes a duty on the Union and grants it the power to take necessary actions, and that imposition of the President''s rule under Article 356 must be used as a last resort.
• The Punchhi commission proposes "localising emergency provisions" under Articles 355 and 356, allowing localised areas, like a district or parts of it, to be placed under Governor''s rule instead of the entire state. This localised emergency should not last more than three months.

The violence in Manipur has spotlighted the debate on Centre-State relations and emergency provisions. While Article 355 allows the Centre to act in crises, Article 356 provides for President’s rule but should be used cautiously. The situation in Manipur highlights the need for decisive action to address severe violence while respecting constitutional guidelines.