Supreme Court urges Kuki, Meitei groups to make peace, remove blockade on highways

The Supreme Court's recent intervention in Manipur's ethnic conflict represents a critical moment in India's federal governance and internal security architecture. Since May 3, 2023, Manipur has witnessed unprecedented ethnic violence between the Meitei community (predominantly Hindu, concentrated in the Imphal Valley constituting about 10% of the state's land area but 53% of its population) and the Kuki-Zo tribes (predominantly Christian, inhabiting the hill districts covering 90% of the territory). The conflict erupted following a Manipur High Court direction to consider including Meiteis in the Scheduled Tribes list, triggering fears among tribal communities about land rights in the hills protected under Article 371C and the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant's emphasis on national highways as "lifelines for ordinary people" underscores a constitutional reality: under Article 246 read with the Seventh Schedule, national highways fall under the Union List (Entry 23), giving the Centre legislative and executive control. However, law and order remains a State subject (Entry 1, State List), creating a federal tension when highway blockades by ethnic groups paralyze essential supplies. The blockade of NH-2 (Imphal-Dimapur) and NH-37 (Imphal-Jiribam) — Manipur's only two arterial links to the rest of India — has caused acute shortages of fuel, medicines, and food, violating citizens' fundamental right to life under Article 21. The Court's restraint from issuing "sweeping directions" reflects judicial wisdom in conflict zones. Under Article 355, the Union has a duty to protect states from internal disturbance, and Article 356 allows President's Rule if constitutional machinery fails. However, the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) established strict judicial review of Article 356 proclamations. The Court's current approach aligns with its role as a mediator rather than an administrator, respecting the political executive's primacy in law and order while upholding constitutional guarantees. Key stakeholders include: the Manipur state government (led by Chief Minister N. Biren Singh, Meitei), Kuki-Zo civil society organizations (Kuki Inpi, ITLF, COTU), Meitei groups (COCOMI, Arambai Tenggol), the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (which deployed 40,000+ central forces), and the Assam Rifles (guarding the Indo-Myanmar border under the Free Movement Regime, now suspended). The conflict has claimed over 220 lives, displaced 60,000+ people, and destroyed thousands of homes. Economically, Manipur's GSDP contracted by an estimated 15-20% in 2023-24. The highway blockades disrupted the Act East Policy's connectivity projects, including the India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway and the Trans-Asian Railway. Politically, the crisis tests India's federal compact and the Sixth Schedule's applicability demands (Kuki groups seek separate administration under Article 3 or autonomous councils under Article 244/244A). Future implications: The Court may appoint a committee (like the Justice Mittal Committee for 2023 violence) for confidence-building. The Centre might push for a political dialogue under the Manipur Peace Accord framework. For aspirants, this case illustrates the interplay of Articles 21, 355, 356, 246, Seventh Schedule, and the Court's epistolary jurisdiction under Article 32 — a masterclass in constitutional federalism during internal crises.