Supreme Court urges Kuki, Meitei groups to make peace, remove blockade on highways
A three-judge Supreme Court bench, in a writ petition filed by the Kuki Women Organisation for Human Rights against the State of Manipur, heard submissions on the continuing blockade of National Highway 2 and other roads in the state
The bench observed that highways function as a "lifeline" for the movement of essential commodities and that continued blockades were disrupting supplies and hurting ordinary residents
The court declined to pass any sweeping or unilateral direction on opening the highways, noting this could risk destabilising the state further
Kuki and Meitei organisations were directed to furnish, within a specified period, a list of blocked roads/highways and proposals for reopening them
The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) was impleaded as a party to the proceedings
Article 32 — Writ Jurisdiction and the Limits of Judicial Directions
Article 32 of the Constitution guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of fundamental rights, empowering it to issue writs including mandamus, habeas corpus, and certiorari. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar called it the "heart and soul" of the Constitution. In matters of internal conflict, however, courts distinguish between enforcing rights and directing law-and-order/administrative outcomes, which fall within executive domain.
Key Details
- Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right (Part III); Article 226 gives High Courts a parallel, wider writ jurisdiction
- Courts have consistently held that judicial directions in sensitive internal-conflict situations must avoid substituting for executive/administrative judgment, to prevent unintended escalation
- The Supreme Court's approach here — seeking joint proposals from the conflicting parties rather than issuing a unilateral opening order — reflects the doctrine of judicial restraint in matters requiring negotiated, community-level resolution
The bench explicitly avoided a top-down direction to open the highways, instead asking the two communities to jointly propose a resolution, illustrating how the Court calibrates writ remedies when a purely legal directive risks reigniting conflict.
President's Rule in Manipur (Article 356)
Manipur has been under President's Rule since February 2025, following the resignation of the state government amid the prolonged Kuki-Meitei ethnic conflict and a breakdown of the state's constitutional machinery. Under Article 356, if the President is satisfied that a state's governance cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution, the state legislature is dissolved or suspended and the state is administered directly by the Union, subject to Parliamentary approval every six months (up to a maximum of three years, per the 44th Amendment safeguards and the S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) ruling).
Key Details
- Proclamation of President's Rule requires approval of both Houses of Parliament within two months; each extension requires renewed Parliamentary approval every six months
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) held that the exercise of Article 356 power is subject to judicial review and laid down that the floor test on the floor of the House is the true test of majority
- Manipur's President's Rule proclamation has been periodically extended by Parliament through 2025 and into 2026
- NHAI's impleadment in this case is significant precisely because, under President's Rule, the Union (not an elected state government) is directly answerable for law-and-order failures such as highway blockades
With Manipur under direct Union administration, responsibility for restoring highway connectivity and essential supplies falls more directly on central authorities, which is part of why the Court chose to implead the Centre-linked NHAI rather than direct the (currently suspended) state government alone.
Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), 1958 — Continuing Application in Manipur
AFSPA grants special powers to the armed forces in areas declared "disturbed" under the Act, including powers of arrest, search, and use of force. It has remained in force across virtually all of Manipur through the current conflict, with the exception of a small number of police station areas in the Imphal valley that have been exempted due to relatively stable conditions.
Key Details
- AFSPA, 1958 applies once an area is declared "disturbed" under Section 3, a notification renewed periodically (commonly every six months) by the Union or state government
- As of the most recent extension, AFSPA covers all of Manipur except roughly a dozen police station jurisdictions in valley districts (including parts of Imphal West, Imphal East, Thoubal, Bishnupur and Kakching)
- The Act has faced long-standing criticism in the Northeast, including from the Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005), which recommended its repeal and integration of its provisions into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
The persistence of AFSPA across most of Manipur underscores that the highway blockades are occurring in a region still formally classified as a "disturbed area," framing the Court's cautious, non-coercive approach to intervention.
Origins of the Kuki-Meitei Conflict — the Scheduled Tribe Status Dispute
The current conflict traces to a March 2023 Manipur High Court order (in Mutum Churamani Meetei v. Union of India) directing the state government to consider recommending Scheduled Tribe status for the Meitei community under Article 342. Tribal groups, particularly the Kuki-Zo community, opposed this, fearing dilution of their land and reservation protections; a tribal solidarity march against the order preceded the outbreak of violence on 3 May 2023.
Key Details
- Article 342 empowers only the President (via public notification, after consultation with the Governor, and subsequent Parliamentary law for modification) to specify Scheduled Tribes for a state — courts cannot direct such inclusion, as held in State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001)
- The Supreme Court later observed that the Manipur High Court's original direction was factually incorrect, and the High Court itself deleted the offending paragraph of its order in February 2024
- The violence since May 2023 has resulted in widespread displacement and casualties, with the Meitei-dominated Imphal Valley and Kuki-Zo-dominated hill districts now separated by informal buffer zones and highway checkpoints
- National Highway 2 (Imphal-Dimapur, part of the Asian Highway network) is the principal supply route into landlocked Manipur, making its blockade a direct threat to essential goods
The highway blockades the Court is now addressing are a direct continuation of the territorial and ethnic fault lines created by the 2023 ST-status dispute, with control over highway access having become a proxy for control over movement between the two communities' areas.
- Case: Kuki Women Organisation for Human Rights v. State of Manipur, W.P.(C) No. 961/2026, heard by a bench led by CJI Surya Kant with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana
- Manipur has been under President's Rule (Article 356) since February 2025
- AFSPA remains in force across Manipur except roughly 13 police station areas in Imphal West, Imphal East, Thoubal, Bishnupur and Kakching districts (most recently extended September 2025)
- Conflict origin: Manipur High Court order of 27 March 2023 (later modified in February 2024) on Meitei ST-status consideration; violence began 3 May 2023
- National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has been impleaded as a party in the current proceedings
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) is the leading precedent on judicial review of Article 356 proclamations