ABSTRACT

This article examines the continuing blockade and insecurity on Manipur's national highways during the imposition of President's Rule, highlighting the Union Government's constitutional responsibilities under Articles 355 and 356, entry No 23 list No. 1(union) of the seventh schedule and part III of the constitution. Despite the direct control of the Centre, the failure to ensure safe and free movement on critical national infrastructure violates fundamental rights under Articles 19 (1)(d) and 21 and raises serious questions about constitutional accountability, judicial responsiveness, and the erosion of public trust in democratic institutions. The union’s failure is not an indirect consequence of conflict but a direct breach of duty, both under statute & the constitution.

INTRODUCTION

The framers of the Indian Constitution envisioned a democracy rooted in accountability, justice, and the rule of law. At its heart lies the belief that each organ of the State—legislature, executive, and judiciary—would serve as a guardian of constitutional rights and freedoms. The invocation of Article 356, which allows for the imposition of President's Rule in a State, was meant to be an exceptional remedy reserved for circumstances where constitutional machinery had irretrievably broken down. However, its misuse or misapplication threatens the very fabric of federalism, democratic governance, and human dignity. But the present scenario in Manipur, despite the invocation of President’s rule under article 356 of constitution the ground realities reflect not the restoration of order but a deeper descent into chaos and constitutional breakdown.

The crisis in Manipur represents not merely a law-and-order failure, but a full-blown constitutional breakdown. More than two years since violence and unrest engulfed the region, the Central Government has assumed direct control under President's Rule. Yet, the very purpose of this constitutional intervention—to restore governance and protect fundamental rights—has been defeated. Citizens continue to suffer without security, access to highways, or protection of life and liberty. Homes have been destroyed, families displaced, and the silence of institutions has only deepened the public's wounds.

Most disturbing is the retreat of the judiciary from its role as sentinel of constitutional conscience. Despite grave violations of Article 14, 19, and 21, courts have offered neither swift redress nor structural intervention. In such moments of institutional failure, we must ask: What is the meaning of the Constitution when its safeguards collapse? And what recourse remains for the people when even the courts fall silent?

This article seeks to answer those questions through a doctrinal and moral examination of the events in Manipur, analyzing the implications of continued institutional inaction under President's Rule, and reaffirming the central role of public sovereignty and constitutional morality in a democracy.

CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK: RESPONSIBILITY UNDER
ARTICLE 356 AND THE PRESIDENT’S RULE

The Indian Constitution enshrines the principle of federalism, with a clear distribution of powers between the Union and the States. However, Article 356 provides a constitutional mechanism through which the Union may assume control over a State governance when the State machinery fails to function in accordance with constitutional norms. Invoked through the declaration of President’s Rule, Article 356 effectively suspends the authority of the elected State Government and vests the executive powers of the State in the President of India, to be exercised either directly or through the Governor, acting as the Union’s agent.

The Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1, affirmed that the use of Article 356 must be exercised with great caution, and is subject to judicial review. Although the purpose of President’s Rule is to restore constitutional order, its invocation also makes the Union Government directly responsible for administration, including the maintenance of law and order, during the period of suspension of the State Government.

In the case of Manipur, once Article 356 was imposed, the responsibility to ensure safety, public order, and enforcement of fundamental rights fell squarely upon the Union, through the office of the Governor or directly via the Ministry of Home Affairs. Any ongoing failure to uphold these obligations, therefore, reflects not a local or State-level lapse but a failure of constitutional governance at the national level.

Even after the imposition of President’s Rule in Manipur under Article 356, the unlawful blockade of national highways has persisted for over two years, gravely undermining the constitutional guarantees of free movement and trade under Articles 19(1)(d), 19(1)(g), and 301. Under Entry 23, List I of the Seventh Schedule, the Union bears exclusive responsibility for national highways; during President’s Rule, this duty becomes immediate and non-delegable. The assumption of State functions under Article 356 demands prompt restoration of constitutional governance and failure to discharge such obligations evidences a “constitutional breakdown.”

This prolonged obstruction is not a one-time lapse but a continuing constitutional wrong. Such sustained violations of fundamental rights keep the cause of action alive for judicial scrutiny. The Union’s inaction, despite exercising direct control under President’s Rule, perpetuates the injury and, amounts to abdication of constitutional duty, making judicial intervention both urgent and necessary.

The breach extends beyond enforceable rights under Part III. It violates Directive Principles under Part IV—particularly Articles 38, 39(b), and 47—by failing to secure a social order founded on justice, ensure equitable access to resources, and raise the standard of living. It also disregards Fundamental Duties under Article 51A(c) and (i), which call upon both citizens and the State to uphold the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, and safeguard public property. Parts III, IV, and IV-A together form the “unified constitutional conscience.” Allowing the State’s lifeline to remain obstructed under direct Union administration reflects a collapse of this conscience—amounting to a total constitutional failure.

RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO ENSURE FREE MOVEMENT ON NATIONAL HIGHWAYS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION

National highways fall under Entry 23, List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, which reads:

“Highways declared by or under law made by Parliament to be national highways.”

This constitutional provision places exclusive legislative and executive competence over national highways on the Union Government, when read with the National Highways Act,1956.

Further, Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution guarantees to all citizens the fundamental right to move freely throughout the territory of India. The obstruction of free passage on national highways thus directly violates this constitutional right.

Moreover, with President's Rule imposed in Manipur under Article 356, the executive powers of the State now vest in the President, exercised through the Governor or directly through the Union Government. Consequently, the responsibility for law and order, especially on national highways, lies squarely with the Central Government during the period of President's Rule.

Therefore, it follows that:

• The Central Government is under a constitutional obligation to ensure uninterrupted and safe passage on national highways.
• The failure to secure free movement, particularly under Article 356 administration, constitutes not only a violation of Article 19(1)(d) & Article 21 but also a breach of constitutional duty on the part of the Union.

This legal interpretation affirms that protecting citizens' access and movement along national highways in Manipur is not optional but a constitutional responsibility of the Union Government, especially during President’s Rule.

In a federal democracy, President’s Rule is meant to restore constitutional governance, not suspend it by inaction. The continued suffering of the people of Manipur, especially when the Union holds direct control, demands a clear legal conclusion: that the Union has breached its constitutional responsibilities under Articles 355 and 356, Entry 23 of List I, and Part III of the Constitution.

This failure is not merely administrative or political — it is constitutional, and therefore, it must be subject to scrutiny, accountability, and correction.

INSTITUTIONAL SILENCE AMID CONSTITUTIONAL BREACH: A PRESUMPTION AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY

In the present crisis in Manipur, where:

• National Highways are obstructed,
• Article 19(1)(d) & 21 are effectively suspended for citizens,
• Law and order fall under the Union’s exclusive control due to President’s Rule, and
• The institutions of governance, including constitutional protectors (executive, legislature, and judiciary), remain inactive or silent,

Such institutional silence cannot be presumed as neutrality.

In constitutional jurisprudence, especially under a written, supreme Constitution, silence in the face of manifest rights violations is tantamount to complicity. The protector of the Constitution becomes violator by omission.

A failure to even interpret or examine the validity of such a breach — particularly where the Union bears clear responsibility under both Entry 23 of List I of the seventh schedule and Article 356 — can no longer be viewed as institutional discretion. Instead, it must be presumed as a stand taken against the Constitution and its guarantees.

When a right is denied and no institution rises to examine or rectify it, the Constitution itself is left without a voice, and the public trust in constitutional governance collapses.

Therefore, the failure of constitutional institutions to act or speak in defense of fundamental rights and rule of law cannot be constitutionally justified. Such abdication of responsibility reflects not silence but breach, and the liability that follows must be recognized in the interest of democratic integrity.

Despite being vested with the extraordinary power to act suo motu under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution — especially when public interest or fundamental rights are at stake — both the High Court of Manipur and the Supreme Court of India have, in this instance, chosen silence.

The judiciary remains silent for over two years, neither issuing suo motu notices nor initiating constitutional interpretation of the breach. This raises a fundamental question: Is judicial silence, in the face of an ongoing constitutional crisis, itself a violation of the Constitution?

It must be stated clearly: when the judiciary, empowered to protect, chooses not to act despite clear constitutional violations, it becomes complicit by omission. The silence of the court is not neutrality; it is a stand — one that permits the erosion of constitutional guarantees.

In constitutional theory, complicity by omission arises when an institution, having the authority and responsibility to act, willfully refrains from action, thereby allowing a violation to continue. In the context of President’s Rule in Manipur, this omission is not benign — it is a form of silent endorsement of the unconstitutional status quo.

FAILURE OF JUDICIAL REMEDIES AND LEGAL MAXIMS TURNED ILLUSORY

Legal maxims have long served as the moral and jurisprudential bedrock of constitutional democracies. They articulate the spirit of justice in concise, enduring phrases. Yet, when institutions fail to uphold their duties, these maxims collapse into empty slogans. The crisis in Manipur offers a tragic example of such collapse.

One of the most fundamental legal principles is ubi jus ibi remedium — where there is a right, there is a remedy. This maxim undergirds Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, granting citizens direct access to constitutional courts for enforcement of fundamental rights. In Manipur, rights under Article 21 have been systematically violated, including the rights to life, dignity, movement, and livelihood. Yet the judiciary has not responded with the urgency or breadth expected under this principle. The maxim, in this context, becomes hollow: the people have rights, but no remedy.

Similarly, the principle of fiat justitia ruat caelum — let justice be done though the heavens fall — embodies the moral courage expected of courts. In times of constitutional collapse, it is the judiciary's sacred duty to act, even at the risk of political confrontation. But in Manipur, where President’s Rule has failed to restore constitutional order, and where impunity reigns over widespread displacement and violence, the judiciary has maintained silence. Justice is not being done, even as the heavens fall.

Another foundational maxim, salus populi est suprema lex — the welfare of the people is the supreme law — demands that all state action be directed toward the protection and well-being of citizens. Yet in Manipur, public welfare appears subordinated to political calculations. State power has been used to preserve administrative convenience, not constitutional deliverance. The judiciary's inaction becomes complicity in this inversion.

Maxim, Frausl legis - The Union Government's continued failure to protect even a few kilometers of national highways in Manipur, while exercising complete executive authority under Article 356, signifies not mere administrative failure but constitutional abdication. It represents a betrayal of the people's trust, a deliberate neglect of constitutional obligations, and amounts to fraus legis—a fraud on the Constitution. By failing to protect its own citizens and instead enabling the de facto elevation of some illegal immigrants and armed aggressors, the State violates the very core of the constitutional compact.

Maxim, Nemo potest facere per obliquum quod non potest facere per directum the continued inaction, lawlessness, and failure to guarantee basic rights even after the imposition of President's Rule make it clear that the constitutional crisis is not resolved but aggravated. The legal maxim "what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly" is fully applicable here. If the inaction of an elected State Government amounted to constitutional failure, the same inaction by the Union under President's Rule cannot be excused or legitimized merely by the change in authority. President's Rule cannot become a shield to perpetuate constitutional breakdown or justify the failure to act.

This becomes most evident in the context of Manipur, where despite the invocation of Article 356, the Central Government has failed for over two years to ensure free and safe passage on national highways, to protect the lives and liberty of citizens, and to restore institutional governance. The prolonged blockade and violence not only violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 but also point to a failure in the constitutional duty of the Union to secure governance and justice in the State.

These maxims are not ornamental Latin phrases. They are constitutional values expressed with brevity and force. When courts disregard them in the face of suffering and injustice, it reflects not merely legal failure but a crisis of moral imagination. The Indian judiciary has in the past invoked these very principles to justify bold interventions, from Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan to Bandhua Mukti Morcha. That constitutional spirit must not be lost.

In Manipur, the absence of judicial remedy has rendered these maxims functionally dead. Their promise survives only in the minds of those still willing to fight for constitutional truth. It is in that fight that the next section locates the final hope: in the sovereignty of the people and the enduring force of constitutional morality.

CONCLUSION

The ongoing failure to protect national highways in Manipur under President's Rule represents a profound constitutional breakdown. It highlights the Union Government's dereliction of its constitutional duties under Entry no. 23 of list no. 1 of the seventh schedule, Articles 355 and 356, violates the fundamental rights of citizens, and reflects a disturbing silence from the judiciary. The prolonged nature of the crisis demands immediate intervention from the judiciary and Parliament to restore the rule of law and public trust in democratic institutions.

This article has argued that legal maxims, once the moral compass of constitutional reasoning, have been rendered meaningless in the face of continued inaction. More dangerously, the constitutional promise of justice and remedy is evaporating before our eyes, leaving the people vulnerable and institutions hollow.

When institutions of justice themselves become indifferent to injustice, they are no longer healers but carriers of the disease. The root cause is not merely external pressure—it is the internal corrosion of courage, truth, and accountability. Unless strict corrections are made, these institutions will not reform themselves. Justice then becomes a word carved in stone, not a living reality.

When those who swear to uphold the constitution ignore its violations, they cease to function as constitutional organs. They become symbols of betrayal- of the trust, of the law, and of the justice itself.

Yet all is not lost. The Constitution is more than text—it is a shared moral inheritance. Its ultimate safeguard lies in the hands of the people, who must now carry its light forward where institutions have gone dark. This is not merely a legal argument; it is a plea for democratic renewal.

In the name of justice, in memory of those who have suffered, and in defence of the Constitution, let this article serve as a living record of truth, and a small act of resistance in the face of silence.