The news context

On Wednesday, the Lok Sabha passed a Statutory Resolution to extend President’s Rule in Manipur for another six months. The resolution will also require approval from the Rajya Sabha. Manipur was placed under President’s Rule in February 2025 after Chief Minister N. Biren Singh resigned amidst prolonged ethnic conflict between the Meitei community in the valley and the Kuki-Zo tribes in the hills.

Minister of State for Home Affairs Nityanand Rai justified the extension, noting that violence had significantly reduced—only one death had been reported in the last eight months, and none in the last four. The government also highlighted recoveries of weapons and ammunition as indicators of improving law and order.

Opposition MPs, however, including Congress MP A. Bimol Akoijam, opposed the extension, arguing that the Assembly should instead be dissolved to allow for fresh elections with a new popular mandate.

Constitutional provisions on President’s Rule

President’s Rule is imposed under Article 356 of the Constitution when:

1. The President, on receipt of a report from the Governor or otherwise, is satisfied that the governance in a state cannot be carried on in accordance with constitutional provisions.

2. During President’s Rule, the state government is dismissed, and the state legislature is either suspended or dissolved, with the administration run directly by the Centre through the Governor.

Parliamentary approval is required:

• The proclamation of President’s Rule must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months.

• Once approved, it lasts for six months at a time.

How long can President’s Rule be extended?

The maximum period for President’s Rule is generally three years (Article 356(4) and 356(5)), but with conditions:

• It can be extended every six months with Parliament’s approval.

• However, beyond one year, it can only continue if:

  1. A National Emergency under Article 352 is in operation, or

  2. The Election Commission certifies that conducting elections in the state is not possible.

Thus, while President’s Rule in Manipur is being extended for six months now, its continuation beyond a year will require either certification by the Election Commission or the existence of a National Emergency.

Political and legal perspectives

• For the extension: The Centre argues that ethnic tensions remain sensitive, and premature elections could risk reigniting violence. Stability and disarmament are seen as prerequisites for a functioning democratic government.

• Against the extension: Critics argue that prolonged President’s Rule undermines federalism and the democratic mandate. If law and order has improved, elections should be held instead of keeping the state under central control.

India has a history of long stretches of President’s Rule, particularly in states with instability. For instance, Jammu & Kashmir was under President’s Rule (and later Governor’s Rule) for over six years (1990–1996).

Implications for India and Manipur

For Manipur, the extension signals that the Centre prioritises law-and-order consolidation over immediate democratic restoration. However, continued absence of an elected government may deepen the alienation of communities already distressed by conflict.

For India’s federal structure, the case underlines the tension between stability and democracy. Article 356 has historically been misused for political ends, and its repeated application invites scrutiny from both courts and citizens.