Constitutional Governance And Constitutionalism - A Historical Perspective In Manipur

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Constitutional & Human Rights

Published: 2026-08-23T18:54:51.825356+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:11:40.854+00:00

CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE AND

CONSTITUTIONALISM - A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE IN

MANIPUR

Dr. N. Pramod Singh, Associate Professor, Department of Law, DMU, Manipur

ABSTRACT

The constitution is a rule book of Indian parliamentary democracy in which the state is governed, neither by the ruler nor elected representatives of the people but by the law, which means that governance should be based on the principles of law but not of men. The article deals with the constitutional schemes inter alia constitutionalism covering a wide range of government activities that regulate the diversified and pluralistic society of India within the legal limits. It not only gives assurance for setting up a welfare governance but also promises to set up a free, integrated and vibrant society. Hence, the responsible government is obligated to take adequate welfare measures based on economic, social, cultural and political justice, as embedded in the constitution and constitutionalism.

The article also dwells upon the historical evolution of written constitution vis a vis constitutionalism with special reference to the NE state of Manipur. Keywords: Antithesis, constitutionalism, constitutional governance, egalitarian society, travesty, loiyumba shinyen, pannas, lallup, salais, yumnak, mashil, cheirap court, darbar, impunity.

Introduction The constitutional democracy primarily rests on open and transparent government founded on justice, liberty, equality, fraternity, peace and development in which constitutional governance per se is an antithesis of arbitrary exercise of power by public authorities. Whereas the constitution is a rule book of Indian parliamentary democracy in which the state, in true sense of term, is truly governed by the law and the government should be based on the principles of law but not of men. The constitution provides the legal framework but constitutionalism ensures such legal framework being respected and upheld in practice. However, both of them aim to keep the government within the legal boundaries and also facilitate to repose faith and confidence of people in the system.

A constitution without constitutionalism is merely a legal document lacking enforcement while constitutionalism without a constitution lacks a solid legal foundation. A nation state is supposed to have its own constitution whether it is written or unwritten, and the reason being is that the system of governance shall be regulated in accordance with the set of rules and principles, as embodied in the constitution and constitutionalism. Historically evolved system of governance, as found in the NE state of Manipur during the pre-1949, reveals the significance of constitutional governance adopted and followed in the region for a long period of time. However, understanding the relative values of constitution and constitutionalism in upholding a vibrant parliamentary democracy still remains an unabated issue, especially for the NE state of Manipur.

The constitution and constitutionalism The constitution of India, which came into effect from the 26th January, 1950, is the supreme law of the land. It lays down the basic foundation for the nation’s political and legal framework which is not only a national legal document but also a social document. It reflects the aspirations of the Indian people for a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic and republic. It is per se a by-product of the mid-twentieth century, and therefore, the linkage of the constitution with the national movement for freedom is an important source of the legitimacy of the Indian Constitution. The underlying philosophy of such national document was meaningfully shaped during the Indian freedom movement fought against the British colonial regime.

It elucidates its cherished goals in the preamble and also envisages the constitutional mandates to promote welfare of people for which the responsible government needs to take adequate measures for setting up an egalitarian society based on economic, social, cultural and

political justice. The constitutionalism is primarily based on the principles of limited government and rule of law; however, it is an invisible feature in the text of the constitution of India. As such, it remains as a deep-rooted culture without which the constitutional governance cannot be put in place even for a stipulated period of time. That is the reason why the rule of law and constitutionalism remain as the only antithesis for arbitrary and capricious powers exercised by the government officials. It is worth mentioning that the doctrine of constitutionalism aims to check the arbitrary powers of government and establish the supremacy of constitutional law as well. In this regard, the Supreme Court of India held in A. K. Gopalan case (1950) while upholding the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 that the Constitution of India is the supreme law of the land.

The basic structure doctrine, as laid down by the apex court of India in Kesavananda Bharat case (1973), has also invariably enhanced the nature and scope of judicial review by establishing the principle of constitutional supremacy. It shows that the constitution is the foundational legal document and its provisions are binding on all the branches of state including the legislature, executive and judiciary. The Supreme Court, as the guardian of the constitution, has played a key role in upholding the supremacy of the constitution; therefore, the court has not only checked the constitutional legality of the relevant actions of legislature and executive but also determined the validity of the doctrine of constitutionalism embedded in the constitution of India.

Having inserted the enforceable fundamental rights, parliamentary democracy, federal structure, independent of judiciary and judicial review etc. as the basic features of the law of the land, it is apparent that the constitution of India ingrains a deep-rooted culture of respect for the constitution, where citizens, government officials, legislatures and other institutional authorities are obligated to recognize the authority of the constitution, and they are bound to adhere to such principles even in the absence of legal enforcement. The constitution of India outlines the fundamental principles, structures of a government and rights of individuals as well. It also defines the distribution of powers, functions of various branches of state. Whereas the Indian constitutionalism is a politico-legal philosophy which is imperative for a democratic setup of government.

It refers to both theory and practice of governing a state by a constitution that advocates for the limitation of governmental powers through the written and unwritten constitutional laws. It aims to prevent arbitrary rules and actions and also promotes accountability and transparency of government actions in accordance with the law of the land. The idea of constitutionalism emphasizes adherence not

only to the constitutional text but also the principles ingrained therein. In a way, the constitution provides the legal framework but constitutionalism ensures such legal framework being respected and upheld in practice. The relation between the two is symbolic in their nature, since both of them aim to work together for establishing a system of good governance in the country. Therefore, it can be said that a constitution without constitutionalism is merely a legal document lacking enforcement while constitutionalism without a constitution lacks a solid legal foundation in which the working of the governance is expected to be minimal in term of its longevity.

It is worth mentioning some of the key principles of constitutionalism embedded in the Indian constitution; viz, i) Democratic principles: It emphasizes parliamentary democracy, constitutional governance, electoral system, majority rule with minority rights, open and accountable of government officials etc. ii) Limited government: It aims to restrict the powers of government officials through the provisions of the constitution by keeping them within the legal boundaries, iii) Rule of law: It upholds the principle that all government officials including the private individuals are subject to the law of the land, and no one is above it.

The rule of law ensures the principles of equality and equal protection to all without any discrimination, iv) Separation of powers: It postulates for the separation of powers among the three organs of the state; viz, legislature, executive and judiciary, so that there will be no question of concentrating of powers in any organ of the state, v) Checks and balances: The idea is to enable each organ of the state to monitor and restrain the actions of other organs in order to prevent from breaching the constitutional law and principles, and vi) Protection of individual rights: The constitutionalism focuses on protection of individual rights and liberties. It also prioritizes the enforcement of fundamental rights inter alia socio-economic rights enshrined in the part III and IV of the constitution.

In a way, the constitution keeps evolving through the amendments by the legislature and interpretations by the judiciary, but the constitutionalism ensures such changes aligned with the principles of limited government, rule of law and protection of rights of individuals. The greatness of Indian constitution is that it has survived without any massive landscape in its working for more than seven decades. Upholding the true spirits of a welfare governance, citizens shall have the opportunity to participate in the governance as well.

The evolution of constitutional governance Idea of having a constitutional system of governance vis a vis system of judicial institution is a universal phenomenon of a nation building process in every human civilization. Such evolutionary process was not an exception to the NE state of Manipur. In this regard, the constitutional history of Manipur can be traced from 1074 A. D. when king Meidingu Loiyumba proclaimed the Loiyumba Shinyen as the first written constitution of Manipur which was a royal edict (written constitution) proclaimed by the king Loiyumba of Manipur during the period of 1074-1112 A. D. It was mainly found to be related to the issues of social, economic, cultural, administrative and judicial system of the kingdom. The said constitution incorporated both the theological as well as a set of rules for the governance of the state.

In addition, the early customary rules and traditional practices, adopted and followed before the reign of king Meidingu Loiyumba, were also found embodied in the Loiyumba Shinyen, and the systems of land revenue, socio-economic and cultural norms among others were embedded in the constitution. Whatever said and ordered by the king was to be followed as the law of the state, as the monarchical system of government was recognised and accepted by all. The constitution was an important historical document for the reconstruction of socio-economic, political and cultural system as well during the early period of Manipur. It was further developed and expanded by the kings of Manipur; like Kyamba (1467-1508), Khagemba (1595-1652), Garibniwaj (1709-1748), Bhagychandra (1763-1798) and Chourajit (1803-1813).

The Cheitharon Kumbaba, one of the most authoritative palace diaries of the early Manipur, pointed out that along with the Loiyumba Shinyen, the king administered his subjects and also governed the affairs of his kingdom by following a system called Lallup in which entire population was divided into six Pannas. The Pannas were like divisions of places and the head of family or the tribe had to select the man who could render Lallup (service) to the king or on behalf of the Pannas to which he belonged. The Lallup system covered every aspect of governmental activities in those days of the early Manipur; however, the Lallup system was abolished in 1892 when Churachand Singh became the king of Manipur. Another system called Yumnak Mashil (allocation of work) was also put in place in which each Yumnak (clan) of Seven Salais had its Mashil.

All the Yumnak performed their own obligations for the wellbeing of their society. The Yumnak Mashil was the specific work performed by each Yumnak and the name of the Yumnak was given according to the work assigned to the Yumnak, whereas Lallup was the service rendered to the king by the male adult by attending the royal office. The

decree of Loiyumba Shinyen, proclaimed by the king Loiyumba of Manipur during the period of 1074-1112 A. D. along with the systems of Pannas, Yumnak Massin and Lallup, were adopted and followed in Manipur till 1891. Though there were some modifications in the administrative systems and practices from time to time, the decree of Loiyumba Shinyen dealt precisely with the distributions of occupations according to the Yumnak, assignment of duties to the priests and priestesses, assignment of the works of maintenance of abode of villages deities, establishment of administrative units and departments, conferment of powers and functions of the kings and the queens, establishment of royal etiquette, titles and decorations awarded to the nobles and establishment of administration of justice, among others.

Such systems and practices of governance, administrative affairs and administration of justice, adopted in the early period of Manipur were carried out in accordance with the norms and practices of the Loyumba Shinyen. Eventually, such historical testimonies and constitutional practices became as an important road-map in building up for a new governance in the NE state of Manipur. The constitutional history of Manipur Every nation state is supposed to have its constitution, whether it is written or unwritten, and the basic reason is that the system of government and its mode of governance need to be regulated in accordance with a set of rules embodied in the constitution. The constitution normally enshrines the fundamental rules which lay down the type and organization of the government and also deals with the powers and functions of the legislature, executive and judiciary.

It not only sets out rights and freedoms of citizens and individuals but also regulates the relationship between the state and its subjects. Manipur was an independent kingdom from the reign of Nongda Lairen Pakhangba (33A. D), and there were as many as seventy-six monarchs/ kings who ruled the state of Manipur till the union of India took over the kingdom of Manipur. The monarchy system was the form of government in the early period and there was no concept of nation state. In fact, it was the monarchical system of government in which the kings ruled and administered their respective kingdoms and subjects; however, the rulers were helped and assisted by their subordinates in maintaining the affairs of governance, public administration and administration of justice, among others.

Manipur became one of the native states of British alliance as early as 1760s; however, there was a long gap of nearly six decades between the British and Manipur. The relation between the two entities got revived only when the Anglo-Burmese war broke out in 1825-1826.

Manipur enjoyed, during the period of 1726-1891, as an independent sovereign state and there was no external intervention in the politico-legal status and internal affairs of the kingdom of Manipur except during the Burmese occupation of Manipur during 1819-1826. Manipur became one of the subordinate states of the British paramountcy, especially in the aftermath of the Anglo-Manipuri war of 1891. During the period of 1891-1947, all the powers of governance including public administration and administration of justice of state were centralized in the hands of British officers and natives were given only the nominal powers by the British.

Framing of the Manipur Administration Rules, 1907 with an objective to have a common administration both for hill and valley of Manipur was, in fact a new idea of British, especially in dealing with the helm of administrative affairs of both hill and valley of the state. Even though the Raja of Manipur was given the power to hold the affairs of state administration assisted by the Manipur State Darbar, the Raja of Manipur was only a nominal head of the State Darbar in which he was only an ex-officio president the Darbar. The political agent of British became the actual head of the Darbar who could take the final decisions of all the concerned state affairs.

In, addition, the Darbar was the highest original as well as the appellate criminal court in the state and it could try all cases beyond the jurisdiction of the Cheirap Court barring of those cases in which hill men and British were involved. Therefore, the British political agents had both the de facto and de jure authority to rule the state in the name of the native Raja. Manipur was an independent princely state for centuries together till the British invaded Manipur in 1891 and also continued to be a protectorate state of the British government till 1947. The Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947 It is apparent that the very idea of making a written constitution was realized in the 11th century during the reign of king Loiyumba in the early history of Manipur and the same was also put in place till 1891.

On the 1st November, 1946, the Congress along with some other political parties of Manipur submitted a memorandum to the Maharaja of Manipur to make a royal declaration for establishment of a Legislative Assembly inter alia a responsible government on the basis of universally accepted democratic principles. Finally, on the 12th December, 1946, the Maharaja of Manipur issued a formal order to set up a responsible government of Manipur. Accordingly, on the 10th March, 1947, a Constitution Drafting Committee comprising of sixteen members including Mr. F. F. Pearson as its chairman was constituted. The Committee submitted a draft constitution to the Maharaja of Manipur on the 26th July, 1947 and

subsequently, the Manipur State Constitution Act was approved and enacted in 1947 by the Maharaja Budhachandra Singh. However, at that point of time, the process of making a new constitution for independent India began to roll out only after the adoption of the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947. One of basic reasons for early enactment of a written constitution of Manipur state was that the people did not like the feudalistic governance, instead they preferred to have a democratic constitutional government of their own, and eventually, there was also a compelling situation in which the state of Manipur had to set up its own interim government as well. In the aftermath, a constitutional governance was established under the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947 that comprised of 58 sections.

The Act provided for a State Assembly consisting of fifty-three elected members and also laid down the powers, functions and obligations of the organs of the state. Fundamental rights and duties of citizens and individuals were recognised and guaranteed by the Constitution Act. Embodiment of rules for election on adult franchise and setting up a council of ministers comprising of six ministers elected by the State Assembly were some of the important features of the Constitution. The chief minister was to be appointed by the Maharaja in consultation with the elected ministers. On other hand, enactment of the Manipur State Hill People’s (Administration) Regulation, 1947 was also a unique legislative measure of the responsible government to enforce its administration in hill area of the state in accordance with the Manipur State Constitution Act. The Regulation of

1947 provided the ways and means for carrying out public administration, particularly in hill

areas in which a minister among the council of ministers was assigned with the responsibility in dealing the affairs of the hill people. However, the Maharaja of Manipur had the sole constitutional authority to take the final decision as per the mandates of the 1947 Constitution and the 1947 Hill Regulation. In addition, the Manipur State Court Act, 1947 was also enacted consisting of 37 sections. The Act enabled to set up an organized judicial system and its institutional functions in the state, which was authorized to deal with the civil and criminal cases both for hill and valley of Manipur. It not only laid down the procedural rules to be followed by the courts but also provided the mode of punishments to be awarded to the guilty persons.

However, the responsible government, which was set up under the Manipur State Constitution Act of 1947, did not last long as Manipur became a part of union of India in October, 1949. Eventually, those laws passed and invoked by the responsible government of Manipur became infructuous

legislations soon after the Merger Agreement was signed between the Maharaja of Manipur and the government of India on the 15th October, 1949 at Shillong. It is apparent that those enactments including the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947, the Manipur State Hill People’s (Administration) Regulation, 1947 and the Manipur State Courts Act, 1947, which were enacted and enforced by the state of Manipur even prior to the enforcement of the constitution of India, had neither been amended, repealed nor deleted legally by any competent authority as per the mandates of Articles 13 & 372 of the Constitution of India. Initially, the state of Manipur was accorded as a part C state till 1956 and thereafter, she continued to be a union territory up to the 20th January, 1972.

However, Manipur became a full-fledged state of union of India from the 21st January, 1972 as per the enactment of the North Eastern Area (Reorganization) Act of 1972. The travesty of constitutionalism The parliamentary democracy stands on three majestic pillars, i. e. , legislature, executive and judiciary in which executive becomes not only the connecting authority among the three organs of a state but also acts as an intermediary link between the state and citizens. A welfare state, as set forth in the constitution, is a controller, regulator, arbitrator, promoter and protector for the welfare of the people. It is also expected for the responsible government to have all kind of engagements, especially in the name of governance of a welfare state.

The reason being is that the good governance essentially reposes a mandatory obligation on the part of responsible government to take adequate steps and measures in proving the basic needs and requirements to its fellow countrymen keeping into consideration their core historical, social and political backgrounds, simply because they made unconditional surrender to be the integral parts of union of India. It is a universal phenomenon that every polity in the world invariably adopts repressive measures in the name of good governance either through the invocation of repressive laws or administrative policies.

In similar manner, invocation of such repressive measures in the name of law and order, counter-insurgency, public safety and national integrity by the responsible government, more particularly in the NE states in general and Manipur in particular, has virtually followed the same suit as that of the past colonial British legacy. The law enforcement agencies, deployed under the repressive legislations are, virtually privileged to enjoy the impunity and immunity even when they have committed serious violations of human rights of

citizens in contravention with the law of the land. As a result, the situation in the region has been seriously affected in a multiple ways and dimensions. Ever since, the state of Manipur became a part of union of India in 1949, the region has turned to be socially, economically, politically and historically a hot spot region in the NE India. Eventually, during the passage of time, politically motivated movement of insurgency, militant, guerrilla and national liberation have also grown up leading to a perennial issue of armed conflict in the region. A case in point is the invocation of the Armed Forces (Special) Powers Act, 1958, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the National Security Act, 1980, among others which have been put in place almost in a perpetual manner in the name of maintenance of law and order, national, integrity and national security among others.

As a result, there has been a serious impact on the constitutional governance and constitutionalism in the region. A case in point is the invocation of the AFSPA, 1958 from the early 1980s onwards till date, which per se is considered to be the re-incarnation of the Armed Forces Ordinance, 1942 of the British India. Law enforcing agencies of the state as well as central armed forces operating under this Act are protected and also given immunity from the legal tangle whenever and wherever they get involved in the commission of crimes against life and liberties of citizens. This piece of legislation has almost overturned the avenues available to the victims of human of rights violation, and on other hand, the perpetrators of human rights violation of citizens have been allowed to get scot-free without any legal issue.

Such practice has, undoubtedly created a big fraud on the working of Indian constitution and constitutionalism in the region. The apex court of India in NPHMR vs Union of India (1997) upheld the constitutionality of the AFSPA of 1958. It seems that even the judiciary has justified the colonial principles of secrecy, privileges, immunity and impunity enjoyed by the authorities of government. Surprisingly, the same verdict of the apex court has also overlooked the legal implications of international human rights laws inter alia the Indian constitutionalism. In a way, the Court did not consider the binding international obligations of India, as set forth in the multilateral international treaties to which she had so far acceded.

On other hand, universally accepted doctrine of rule of law and constitutionalism invariably ensure that every victim of human rights violation can resort to appropriate judicial recourse available under the existing legal order, which is not at all an exception to Indian legal system. Invocation of such repressive measures without any rational justification has, obviously ignited and also intensified the

perennial armed conflict situation in the region. It seems that the prevailing circumstances perhaps keep insisting the application of culture of authority rather than the culture of justification; however, such phenomenon has created an adverse impact almost in all respects on the Manipuri society in general and citizens of this state in particular. Instead of resorting to such colonial nature of repressive measures in the name of saving democracy and retaining a good governance, the existing new criminal laws of India might have been used and enforced from the very beginning in dealing with the situation.

In a way, the global human rights and humanitarian law regime may have facilitated the issue of unwarranted regional and local turmoil among people of this country, simply because such global development can also ignite the problem of identity clashes and community conflicts among the ethnic groups. It may also be said that those politically motivated brokers of such incidents are eager to get the chance of manufacturing the tension between the conflicting indigenous people for their own political benefits.

One of the glaring examples is the communal clash between Meitei community and Kuki hill tribes of Manipur that broke out in the first week of May, 2023 and the same violence and conflict have been lingering years together without any viable solution due to some profound issues and reasons, such as involvement of foreign elements, politicalization of the issue and lack of responsible governments’ positive responses, among others. Therefore, it shows that a deep-rooted intrinsic culture of preserving one’s identity, language, culture, place, religion etc. in the NE states and Manipur has become quite a complicated problem in retaining the constitutional governance and constitutionalism as well.

In fact, every community has started asserting its own rights and freedoms based on their land, language, culture and place basing on their, so called, basic human rights accorded by the international human rights laws with the share of global values. It is evident that during the last two decades, a number of communities based underground outfits have also been increasingly found on the rise, and the same issue has, obviously propelled to irreparable diversification among the ethnic groups, that too within their own home land. The movement of indigenous people in the region has also grown up its momentum in the midst of such perennial issue of armed conflict.

on the contrary, apathy, conflict, mismanagement of public affairs coupled with deep rooted corrupt practices have always been the serious threats to the constitutional governance and culture of constitutionalism, more particularly in the state of Manipur. Having had the experiences of constitutional governance and culture of constitutionalism in the past,

the state of Manipur, as a part of union of India, is yet to realize the long-cherished objectives, as set forth in the constitution of India. Understanding the aged-old socio-economic and political situation inter alia the ethnicity relations among the indigenous communities of the region are the focal issues which have not been advertently or inadvertently addressed to for years together. Eventually, the rise of political violence, separatist tendencies, divisible forces, communalism, regionalism, religion-based conflict, social and cultural tension, ethnic conflict, among others have increasingly created a new phenomenon in the region. Conclusion The constitutional governance is primarily based on the principles of law but not of men.

The significance of the constitutional schemes inter alia the culture of constitutionalism highlights the relative values of Indian parliamentary democracy. The constitutional principle aims to regulate the diversified and pluralistic society of India by keeping the government officials within the legal boundaries. Both the constitution and constitutionalism of India not only postulate for setting up a welfare governance but also promise to set up a free and pluralistic vibrant society. Hence, it is the foremost important obligation of the national government to take adequate welfare measures based on economic, social, cultural and political justice, as embedded in the constitution and constitutionalism of India.

Understanding the perennial issues of NE state of Manipur and finding out a durable solution may be the first available premise in preventing from the travesty of constitutionalism.

References

1. Basu, D.D.: Introduction to the Constitution of India; LexisNexis, India, 23rd Edition, 2018

2. Sorabjee, Soli, J. (ed.): Law & Justice;Universal Law Publishing Co. Pt. Ltd., New Delhi,

3. John Agresto: The Supreme Court and Constitutional Democracy; Prentice Hall of India

4. Sanajaoba, N.: Rights of Oppressed Nations (Peoples); Omsons Publications, New Delhi,

5. Hidayatulla, M.: Democracy in India and the Judicial Process; Asia Pub., New Delhi,1996

6. Rao, B. Shiva, The Framing of Indian Constitution, Select Document; New Delhi,1967

7. Seervai, H.M.: Constitutional Law; N.M. Tripathi, Bombay,1984

8. Austin Granville: The Indian Constitution Cornerstone of a Nation; Oxford University Press,

UK, 2018

9. Sanajoba, N.: Current Legal Essays; Akansha Publishing House; New Delhi, 2007

10. Pandey, J.N.: Constitutional Law of India; Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 2004

11. Pylee, M.V,: Our Constitution, Government and Politics (Second Edition); Universal Law

Publishing Co., New Delhi, 2002

12. Kumar,V, Kumar N.V, Vijay,P.T,(ed.): Law, Judiciary and Governance; Universal Law

Publishing, Gurgaon, Haryana, 2017

13. Noorani, A.G, Constitutional Questions in India; Oxford University Press, UK; 2002

14. Mahajan, V.D, Constitutional Law of India; Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 1991

15. V.D. Kulshreshta, Landmarks in Indian Legal History, New Delhi, 2002

16. Sanajoba, N.(ed.): Manipur Past and Present Vol. I-III, Mittal Publications, New Delhi,

1988-1995