(ANALYSIS) The Feb. 9 resignation of Manipur Chief Minister N. Biren Singh, which conveys little remorse or admission of failure, must at least be followed by swift and constitutionally sound action from Governor Ajay Kumar Bhalla to ensure that this potential first step toward resolving the prolonged conflict is somewhat effective.

The chief minister’s resignation came less than a week after a forensic examination report on leaked audio recordings — referred to as the “Manipur Tapes” and allegedly linking him to ethnic violence — was submitted to the Supreme Court as prima facie evidence by a petitioner. While the Court requested a forensic analysis from a government agency, the independent forensic lab, Truth Labs Forensic Services, concluded with over 93% certainty that the voice in the recordings belongs to the chief minister.

The resignation came a day before an expected no-confidence motion in the state assembly. Singh was aware that he would not be able to prove his majority, as 26 of the 46 legislators in his alliance declined to attend a meeting he had called on Feb. 9, as reported by The Hindu, which also said that dissidents had allegedly been threatened with being “hounded out” if they supported a no-confidence motion against Singh’s government.

These circumstances surrounding his resignation suggest that the move was driven by sheer compulsion and political considerations rather than by any realisation that it was in the best interest of the people of Manipur or by long-awaited coercive action from the central leadership of the Bharatiya Janata Party.

If anyone still has any doubts, they should examine the content of Singh’s resignation letter. 

Content of the resignation letter

Despite his failure— to say the least— to protect lives and property, he writes, “It has been an honor to serve the people of Manipur thus far.”

The violence — which erupted on May 3, 2023, and involving the majority Meitei community, to which Singh belongs, and the minority Kuki-Zo tribes — has killed at least 258 people (by a highly conservative estimate) destroyed thousands of homes and displaced tens of thousands. Therefore, it’s difficult to understand how he defines “service” in the context of governance and what he means by “thus far.”

Does he still have the audacity to expect reinstatement?

Singh then urges the central government to continue the “crackdown on border infiltration and to formulate policy for the deportation of illegal immigrants and the fight against drugs and narco-terrorism.” The terms “illegal immigrants” and “narco terrorism” were at the centre of the propaganda that has been behind the ethnic violence.

He would have been absolutely right had he urged a crackdown on insurgency, which has increased significantly under his watch. But he didn’t.

The way ahead

While Singh’s resignation has reportedly been accepted, the Governor has requested him to remain in office until “alternative arrangements are made.” 

“In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 174 of the Constitution of India, I, Ajay Kumar Bhalla, Governor of Manipur, hereby order that the previous directive to summon the 7th session of the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly, which has yet to commence, is hereby declared null and void with immediate effect,” read a statement from the Governor’s office.

Now, an important question is how long may the Governor wait for “alternative arrangements are made”? The Indian Constitution, judicial precedents and past political crises offer clear guidance.

The Governor has two primary constitutional obligations: to invite a new leader who can prove majority support on the floor of the Assembly within a “reasonable” timeframe and, if no viable government emerges, to recommend President’s Rule under Article 356, ensuring governance does not come to a standstill.

The Governor must act within a week. Should political instability persist beyond 10 to 14 days, President’s Rule may become unavoidable.

The Constitution vests discretionary powers in the Governor under Article 163, but this discretion is not absolute. It is bound by constitutional norms, judicial directives and the overarching principle of ensuring democratic stability.

Supreme Court judgments have emphasised that Governors cannot delay these processes arbitrarily. The need for urgency is particularly crucial in politically unstable or violence-prone states like Manipur, where administrative paralysis can lead to deteriorating law and order and a delay can potentially lead to horse-trading.

Precedent

Several landmark cases call for immediate action in situations like Manipur’s.

In Jagdambika Pal v. Union of India (1998), the Supreme Court intervened in a political crisis in Uttar Pradesh, where two claimants, Kalyan Singh and Jagdambika Pal, both asserted they were the rightful Chief Minister.

To resolve the deadlock, the Court ordered a composite floor test “within 48 hours,” making it clear that the legislative majority must be determined on the Assembly floor, not through executive or the Governor’s discretion. The principle was that the Governor cannot arbitrarily decide government formation and that swift action is necessary to prevent governance paralysis.

Further, in Shivraj Singh Chouhan v. Speaker, Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly (2020), the Supreme Court addressed a political crisis after the resignation of multiple Congress legislators, which put the Kamal Nath-led government’s majority in question. The Court ruled that delaying a floor test would undermine democratic governance and ordered that the test be conducted “within 24 hours.”

Furthermore, in Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court ruled that the premature dissolution of the Bihar Assembly by the Governor was unconstitutional, as it was based on an assumption that no stable government could be formed. The Court held that the Governor cannot decide in advance that a particular government would be unviable and that legislative processes must be allowed to take their course.

Based on these constitutional principles and judicial precedents, the Governor of Manipur must act fast. The expected steps should be as follows: Assess the situation and invite the leader of the largest party or coalition to form the government. If a clear majority exists, the new Chief Minister must be sworn in and asked to prove majority support within 48 hours. If no single party has a majority, the Governor should explore coalition possibilities.

The Supreme Court has previously stated that coalitions should be given time but not indefinite delays. If no stable government emerges, the Governor must prepare a report under Article 356, citing breakdown of governance and recommending President’s Rule. If instability persists beyond two weeks, President’s Rule must be imposed as per established precedent to prevent administrative collapse.

After an inconclusive election in Karnataka in 2018, Governor Vajubhai Vala invited B.S. Yediyurappa to form the government and gave him 15 days to prove his majority. The Supreme Court intervened and reduced this timeframe to 24 hours, ruling that delays in proving majority could enable undemocratic practices like horse-trading. We could say that allowing more than 10-14 days of uncertainty can create governance paralysis, which the Court seeks to avoid.

Exclusion of Kuki-Zo lawmakers

Another significant concern in Manipur’s governance crisis is the effective exclusion of 10 Kuki-Zo MLAs, who have been unable to attend assembly sessions in person due to ethnic violence for the last two years.  In light of Supreme Court judgments, this is a serious constitutional issue.

The Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) case primarily dealt with the anti-defection law under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which governs disqualification of legislators who defect from their parties. However, the Court also ruled that legislative participation is fundamental to democracy and that any restrictions on an MLA’s ability to attend and vote in the House must be legally justified and not arbitrary. Therefore, elected representatives cannot be prevented from fulfilling their legislative duties due to security threats for an extended period of time.

The state of Manipur has failed to ensure the safety of the Kuki-Zo legislators should they travel to Imphal for a session. This alone points to a breakdown of constitutional governance.

The situation is difficult for the BJP and the Governor it appointed in Manipur, but the party has no one else to blame.

This piece has been co-published in collaboration with Newsreel Asia.

Vishal Arora is an independent journalist based in New Delhi, India, who covers Asia and beyond. He serves as editor of @Newsreel_Asia and is a board member of The Media Project. He’s written for many outlets including The Wall Street Journal, The Diplomat and The Caravan.