By Rabindra Nath Sinha
KOLKATA: Manipur Pradesh Congress Committee has recently posed to state Governor Ajay Bhalla certain constitutionally significant issues regarding the status of the 60 member-Manipur Legislative Assembly. If stretched a point, the issues raised by Manipur Congress president K Meghachandra Singh, MLA, in his letter to the Governor dated July 22 appear to have political ramifications too. So, the Governor’s response assumes importance.
The letter cites, inter alia, the Supreme Court’s judgment in S R Bommai vs Union of India, 1994. The arguments built up by the legal cell of Manipur Congress do indicate the possibility of the matter reaching the apex court when a new ministry is formed in the ethnic strife-scarred north-eastern state and if the chief minister is required to face a floor test. Complications may arise then.
At the moment this may be a matter of speculation, but the Bharatiya Janata Party, which led the NDA ministry before the state came under President’s rule on February 13, is trying hard to re-establish a popular ministry.
In this context, the situation that evolved in the first two weeks of February warrant a recall. Then chief minister N Biren Singh, a Meitei of standing, was facing his toughest political challenge from the Kuki-Zos of the Hills who complained of discrimination by the majoritarian Valley-based Meitei-controlled administration and were demanding a separate administrative set-up for the Hills. Moreover, the Union ministry of home affairs with Amit Shah as its political master had by then manoeuvred to have the final say in law and order management and thus had weakened Biren Singh’s political standing.
Which meant that the then chief minister had managed to retain his hold since the outbreak of ethnic violence on May 3, 2023 on the issue of ST status for the majoritarian Meiteis. But, come February and Biren’s helplessness grew and ultimately he resigned on February 9. President’s rule commenced four days later on February 13 and the Assembly was kept under suspended animation. If the contents of the Manipur PCC chief’s latter are read between the lines, a doubt about Biren’s resignation date – February 9 – may not be invalid. Was it a calculated move ? It bears mention that just days before his resignation, the Supreme Court had ordered forensic analysis of leaked audio tapes, allegedly implicating the then chief minister in the ongoing ethnic violence.
In the letter of July 22 to Governor, PCC chief Meghachandra has posed : “whether the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly is still alive or already dead or constitutionally deemed to be dissolved from midnight of February 11, two days prior to imposition of President’s rule”. The last session of the House was held on August 12, 2024 and under Article 174 (1) of the Constitution, the next session should have been mandatorily held on or before February 11. But the crucial development of the then chief minister’s resignation happened on February 9 and on the same day Governor Bhalla declared his January 24 order summoning the Assembly for February 11 under Article 174 (1) of the Constitution as null and void.
[Under Article 174, the Governor has to ensure that six months do not intervene between the Assembly’s last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session].
The Congress has argued that on the date of the chief minister’s resignation, that is, February 9, the Assembly was not in suspension “and was in fact a live Assembly. Hence the mandatory rigours of Article 174 ….. would squarely apply in Manipur. The Governor’s order dated February 9 (after Biren’s resignation the same day) “directly attempts to circumvent the rigours of Article 174 (1) and further delays the sitting of the …. Assembly beyond the constitutionally permitted mandate”, the Congress has contended. It is clear that the Assembly ought to have conducted a sitting on or before February 11 as its last sitting was held on August 12, 2024and on the day – February 9 — of Biren’s quitting, the Assembly was not in suspension.
Article 174 confers on the Governor powers to summon the House on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and to prorogue or dissolve the Assembly. The governor, therefore, has no power to revoke the summons to convene the House, the PCC letter notes. The final question asked in the letter reads : “Is to be concluded that the present 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly suffices necessary conditions for the …. Governor to dissolve the Legislative Assembly under Article 174 (2) (b) of the Constitution ? If the Governor’s response is not definitive , the party would consider approaching the courts to seek judicial interpretation of the House’s status. (IPA Service)
Eminent Journalist Sumit Chakravartty’s Demise Is A Big Loss To Indian Media 