Widening Dis-trust: Between Manipur Government And Tribes Of Hill Areas

Manipur has two distinct areas; the Valley and “Hill Areas” with the latter provided under Article 371C of the Constitution, which constituted a Hill Areas Committee (HAC) to deal with all matters relating to "Hill Areas" as specified in the "Scheduled Matters" of the Presidential Order dated 20th June 1972. These provisions aims at protecting and safeguarding the tribes living in the "Hill Areas" of Manipur against exploitation by the majority community. However, the majority community, which controls the state government, has been continuously attempting to undermine and erode tribal rights and interests thereby increasing the level of dis-trust between them as evidenced by the following actions:-

1. The Ordinance Controversy Distrust: In July 2026, the Manipur government moved to pass an Ordinance regarding the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils (Sixth and Seventh Amendments). Tribal bodies like the United Naga Council (UNC) strongly resisted the move, cautioning the state against pushing a "backdoor ordinance" to enact changes without genuine democratic consensus. Tribal organizations viewed the state's intent to bypass ongoing tripartite talks (involving the Centre, State, and the UNC regarding a complete rollback or a more robust autonomy framework like the Sixth Schedule) by using an ordinance as a direct threat to tribal self-governance.

They argued these amendments impose hollow structures rather than granting meaningful administrative and financial autonomy over land, forests, and tribal customs.

Furthermore, this unilateral push via an ordinance violates Article 371-C of the Constitution of India and the corresponding Presidential Order dated June 20, 1972 (the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972).

This matter also falls under the purview of the Hill Areas Committee (HAC) as provided under Paragraph 4(1) of the 1972 Presidential Order. It states that all "Scheduled Matters" which explicitly include the District Councils, village administration, land management, and tribal customs fall squarely within the exclusive legislative and consultative purview of the Hill Areas Committee  consisting of all MLAs elected from hill constituencies.

Paragraph 4(2) mandates that any Bill or legislative measure dealing with Scheduled Matters affecting the hill areas must be referred to the HAC for consideration. Rule 12-A of the Rules of Business of the Government of Manipur dictates that the state cabinet is legally mandated to normally give effect to the recommendations of the HAC. If the cabinet disagrees with the HAC, it cannot simply substitute its own version or bypass the body via an arbitrary executive ordinance; the matter must instead be referred to the Governor, whose decision is binding. Attempting to bypass the HAC via a sudden ordinance on subjects explicitly listed as Scheduled Matters violates the spirit and text of the 1972 Presidential Order and Article 371-C. Such a move treats constitutional tribal safeguards as procedural formalities, which is why apex bodies like the UNC considers such legislation as an unconstitutional overreach. It would appear from the HAC meeting notice for 7th August 2026 that the Chairperson of the HAC has been tasked with regularizing what the state government initiated by an Ordinance.

The independence of HAC members will be tested by the outcome of that meeting, given that there is already a state government recommendation for the extension of the Sixth Schedule to the "Hill Areas” and also the “The Manipur (Hill Areas) Autonomous District Councils Bill, 2021” recommended by HAC to the state government in August 2021 for making it into law. What the HAC should do in its meeting on Monday is to reiterate the fact regarding the Sixth Schedule recommendation made by the Manipur Government on April 7, 2001 and again in 2017 and ask the state government to reply to the clarifications sought by Government of India on "local adjustments and amendments." 

Further, the HAC should remind the state government about the 2021 ADC Bill to process it in the manner provided under Rule 12-A of the Rules of Business of the Government of Manipur.

This Bill cannot lapse and is still pending with the state government/cabinet for consideration as laid down under Rule 12-A of the Rules of Business.

2. The Judicial Catalyst of Distrust - The Meitei ST Demand and Institutional Complicity: The deep-seated chasm between the hill tribes and the state apparatus in Manipur widened irreparably in 2023 following the handling of the Scheduled Tribe (ST) demand for the dominant Meitei community. The controversy centered on a writ petition filed by the Meitei Tribes Union (MTU), which bypassed fundamental principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, laying bare a profound perception of state complicity. Key procedural anomalies and institutional failures were starkly evident through the exclusion of tribal stakeholders like the United Naga Council or the Kuki Inpi. The petition, which directly threatened the constitutional safeguards, reservation quotas, and land protections of existing scheduled tribes, was deliberated entirely in their absence. Despite the gravity of the issue, which sought to alter the demographic and social resource balance of the state, the Manipur government conspicuously failed to file counter-affidavits or offer substantive resistance or comments during the only hearing. The legal progression moved with unusual speed, with state and central counsels raising no substantive hurdles, facilitating an oral directive on the day of the motion in the first hearing.

Although the formal written judgment dated March 27, 2023, emerged on April 19 on the High Court website, it directed the state government to expedite a recommendation for the Meitei community’s inclusion in the ST list within four weeks.

The judgment immediately ignited intense paranoia and anger across the hill districts, where tribal populations viewed it as a calculated maneuver by the dominant valley community, utilizing state apparatus and judicial channels, to strip away indigenous protections.

The ensuing protests and counter-mobilisations culminated in the devastating ethnic violence of May 3, 2023.

When the matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, the apex court severely castigated the handling of the case, noting orally that High Courts possess no constitutional remit to direct the government on who to include in the ST list. Recognizing the legal overreach, the Manipur High Court ultimately modified its stance months later, formally deleting the contentious paragraph directing the recommendation.

3. The 2021 Speaker’s Order on HAC Membership Distrust: In September 2021, the current Chief Minister Y. Khemchand Singh, who was the Manipur Legislative Assembly Speaker at the time, issued an order on September 1, 2021, inducting valley-based MLAs into the Hill Areas Committee (HAC). This triggered massive outrage across tribal bodies (such as ATSUM, UNC, and student organisations) and lawmakers, who pointed out that Article 371C and the 1972 Presidential Order explicitly restrict HAC membership exclusively to members elected from notified "Hill Areas."

Only the President of India holds the power to demarcate or alter what constitutes a hill area, not the State Assembly Speaker.

Facing intense backlash, protests, and legal challenges, the Assembly Secretariat kept the controversial membership in abeyance. The Speaker's action was constitutionally incorrect, legally untenable, and ultra vires for several fundamental reasons; it violated Article 371C, which explicitly constituted the HAC to protect the distinct demographic, cultural, and land interests of hill tribes.

Diluting it by adding valley MLAs defeats the sole protective purpose of having a localized representative forum.

Furthermore, it represented a jurisdictional overreach by the Speaker under Article 371C, as the composition of the HAC is strictly linked to elected representatives from the "Hill Areas."

A Speaker of the Legislative Assembly has no independent jurisdiction, statutory authority, or executive power to alter or expand the constitutionally mapped boundaries or membership criteria of the HAC.

The HAC is a constitutional mechanism meant to safeguard hill populations from dominant valley-centric legislative decisions. Allowing valley legislators a presence inside the HAC undermines the structural checks and balances meant to shield tribal governance. However, that objective to take away what the Constitution had provided guided the then Speaker.

4. The 2015 Legislative Crisis - Surreptitious Overreach and the Anatomy of Alienation: A foundational precedent for institutional distrust occurred in August 2015 under the Okram Ibobi Singh government, which rushed through three (often collectively referred to alongside related executive actions as four) controversial bills: the Protection of Manipur People (PMP) Bill, the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reform (MLRLR) (Seventh Amendment) Bill, and the Manipur Shops and Establishments (Second Amendment) Bill. Engineered primarily to address valley-centric anxieties regarding demographic shifts and land protection, the legislation was managed in a surreptitious manner. The state government bypassed the mandatory purview of the Hill Areas Committee (HAC) and concealed the drafting process from tribal leadership. When the bills were abruptly tabled and passed during a special session of the Assembly, it triggered widespread fury in the hill districts, particularly in Churachandpur, where tribals viewed the land and regulation laws as a backdoor threat to indigenous hill land ownership.

5. The Sixth Schedule Administrative Deception: The issue surrounding the demand for the Sixth Schedule highlights a recurring pattern of administrative deception. In April 2001, the Manipur state cabinet formally resolved and recommended extending the Sixth Schedule to the hill areas, supplemented with "local adjustments and amendments."

However, when the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) sought explicit clarifications regarding the precise nature of these structural alterations across successive years, the state government, dominated by the majority community, procrastinated and left the queries unanswered. For tribal bodies, this prolonged bureaucratic limbo is viewed as a calculated act of institutional trickery; a hollow gesture designed to pacify central authorities and suppress immediate agitations without ever surrendering actual administrative or land control to the hill districts.

6. The Legacy of Distrusts: Although specific judicial orders like the ST recommendation did not legally survive scrutiny, the damage to social cohesion has been absolute. For the hill tribes, this series of episodes, including the 2015 anti tribal bills, the non-consideration of 2021 ADC Bill,, the alleged state’s complicity in the 2023 ST directive, and the current 2026 ADC Ordinance issue, to name a few, have served as definitive proof that the state government, legal institutions, and the majority community can act in tandem to bypass constitutional protection. It has transformed a theoretical policy debate into an existential crisis, creating a permanent layer of institutional distrust and cementing the perception that the valley-dominated apparatus views constitutional safeguards like Article 371C merely as inconveniences to be circumvented whenever core majority interests are at stake.

7. The Imperative for HAC Spine: The HAC must not allow itself to be treated like a rubber stamp on matters of legislation or executive orders concerning the "Hill Areas." Its members have been given special responsibilities by the Constitution and need to maintain the courage to uphold tribal rights and interests without dancing to the tune of the dominant community. The level of distrust between the majority community and tribes in the "Hill Areas" has reached its zenith. Elected representatives from the "Hill Areas" must face the truth and live up to the expectations of the tribal people they represent.

8.How do the tribes overcome their problem of being dominated, cheated of their rights and treated like second class citizens? It is clear that the tribes cannot overcome this problem until they are united, and unitedly they can secure the right numbers of assembly seats to wrest political power. Census 2027 offers that opportunity along with delimitation. Herein lies the key to unlock the chain to freedom. It would not matter at that stage which group of tribes has the larger number of MLAs. What matters is that the combined tribes could be in a commanding position to grab political power and free themselves to go their separate ways.

9.Monday meeting (7th September 2026) of the HAC is crucial. MLAs should imbibe statesmanship qualities and consider the various matters at stake and assert their rights given to them as elected representatives from “Hill Areas” by the Constitution. Tribes are looking at them for statesman-like leadership.

(Views expressed are personal)