For a divided Manipur, analysing the September 18, 2026 sitting of the Hill Areas Committee of the Manipur Legislative Assembly is one key indicator of matters likely to take the state to a deepening crisis instead of mitigating woes.
By Dhiren A. Sadokpam
The Hill Areas Committee of the Manipur Legislative Assembly convened on September 18 following what the Chairman, MLA Dinganglung Gangmei (Noney A/C), called “a long gap”. Gangmei took to social media to express his feelings and said that “It is a welcome moment to bring the Hill Areas Committee together on a common platform once again. It is a moment of constructive dialogue, mutual understanding and a shared commitment to the interests of the hill areas”.
Gangmei’s message was significant because the Hill Areas Committee exists in an environment that has been characterised by ethnic polarisation that has rendered almost all institutions suspect. Fourteen MLAs, including Deputy Chief Minister Losii Dikho and the Naga legislators from Ukhrul, Tamenglong, Chingai, Kamjong, Karong and Saitu and the Kuki-Zo legislators from Tipaimukh, Singhat, Henglep, Tengnoupal, Churachandpur and Saikot, participated in the meeting, either physically or virtually. The very fact that the meeting took place is a cause for reflection, although the meeting may be questioned on its constitutional propriety.
This article analyses the September 18 meeting of the HAC in the light of Article 371C of the Constitution and the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972 and the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971, in order to understand what the HAC can and cannot achieve in the present context.
The constitutional architecture: Article 371C and the 1972 Order
The Hill Areas Committee is not a voluntary body. It owes its existence to Article 371C of the Constitution. This provision was inserted by the Constitution (Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 1971, which provides that the President may, by order, make provisions for the following:
(a) the constitution and functions of a committee of the Legislative Assembly of the State consisting of members of that Assembly elected from the Hill Areas;
and
(b) the modification of the rules of business of the government and of the Legislative Assembly and the rules of procedure of the Legislative Assembly and any special responsibility of the Governor in order to secure the proper functioning of such committee.
The Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972, issued by President V.V. Giri on 20 June, 1972, provides the operational details of the Hill Areas Committee. Paragraph 3(1) of the Order provides that the Hill Areas Committee shall consist of “all members of the Assembly who, for the time being represent the Assembly constituencies situated wholly or partly in the Hill Areas of the State” and that the Chief Minister and Speaker shall not be members of the Committee. Paragraph 3(2) provides that every Minister shall have the right to speak and to take part in the proceedings of the Committee but shall not have the right to vote, unless he is a member of the Assembly.
Paragraph 4 of the Order lays down the functions of the Committee. All “Scheduled matters” (see Second Schedule) shall be within the exclusive cognizance of the Committee. Paragraph 4(2) provides that every Bill except for a Money Bill relating to the Hill Areas and containing mainly provisions dealing with any of the matters listed in the Second Schedule “shall, after introduction in the Assembly, be referred to the Hill Areas Committee for consideration and report to the Assembly”. The proviso to this paragraph provides that matters relating to the Hill Areas shall be referred to the Committee “if the Governor determines that any such Bill shall be referred to the Hill Areas Committee”.
Paragraph 4(3) provides that the Committee shall have the right to “consider and pass resolutions recommending to the Government of the State any legislation or executive action affecting the Hill Areas with respect to any Scheduled matter”. Paragraph 4(4) provides that the Committee shall have the right to discuss the Annual Financial Statement “in so far as it relates to the Hill Areas” and that the Statement “shall, as far as may be practicable, show separately the estimates of receipts and expenditure pertaining to the Hill Areas”.
Paragraph 4(5) of the Order lays down that the Committee shall “safeguard the interest of the people of the Hill Areas, particularly through accelerated development” and “promote unity between the people of the Hill Areas and other areas of the State by aiming at an integrated and evenly based economic growth”.
Paragraph 6 of the Order provides that before the Five Year Plans and Annual Plans of the State are finalised, the Government shall place before the Committee, “proposals showing separately the Plan Schemes proposed to be taken up in the Hill Areas and the rest of the State” and the Government shall lay before the Committee quarterly reports on the implementation of plan schemes.
Paragraph 9 of the Order provides that the Governor shall have “special responsibility for securing the proper functioning of the Hill Areas Committee” and that the Governor shall “act in his direction” in relation to this responsibility.
The Third Schedule to the Order lays down modifications of the Rules of Business of the Government of Manipur, 1972. Rule 12A provides that the Council of Ministers “shall normally give effect to the recommendation of the Hill Areas Committee” but if the Council of Ministers is of the opinion that it would not be expedient to do so, “the matter shall be referred to the Governor whose decision thereon shall be final and binding”.
The District Councils Act, 1971: The implementing framework
The Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971, provides for the implementation of the recommendations of the HAC. Section 3(1) of the Act originally provided that the Administrator (now the Governor) shall divide all Hill Areas into “not more than six autonomous districts”. The Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils (Sixth Amendment) Act, 2022, substituted the word “six” with “ten”.
Section 29 of the District Councils Act lays down the functions of the District Councils, including maintenance of property, construction of roads and bridges, establishment of primary schools and dispensaries, management of markets and fairs, water supply, soil preservation, public health and sanitation, land allotment for agriculture and grazing, management of unreserved forests, and regulation of jhum cultivation. Section 29(2) provides that the District Councils shall have the right to recommend legislation to the Government on matters relating to Scheduled Tribes, including appointment and succession of chiefs, inheritance of property, marriage and divorce, and social customs.
Section 47 of the District Councils Act provides that the Administrator may supersede a District Council for reasons of incompetence, abuse of power, financial mismanagement, or inability to carry on administration. The second proviso to Section 47(1) provides that the Administrator shall consult the HAC for an extension of supersession beyond one year. Section 48 of the Act provides that the requirement of consultation with the HAC in Section 3(3) and Section 29(xvii) shall be omitted during the period when the HAC is not functioning (following the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly), and the second proviso to Section 47(1) shall have effect as if the words “in consultation with the Hill Areas Committee” had been omitted.
The statutory framework indicates that the HAC is both a statutory committee with powers of recommendation and scrutiny and a consultative body whose recommendations are mandatory for certain acts of the executive, depending on the efficacy on which District Councils exist for implementing such recommendations.
The September 18 Meeting: Attendance and Agenda
Fourteen MLAs attended the September 18 meeting with Deputy Chief Minister Losii Dikho present, among the Naga legislators were Khashim Vashum (Chingai), Leishiyo Keishing (Kamjong), Kumo Sha (Karong), Janghemlung Panmei (Tamenglong) and Ram Muivah (Ukhrul), while the Kuki-Zo contingent included Haokholet Kipgen (Saitu), Ngasanglur Sanate (Tipaimukh), Chinlunthang (Singhat), Letzamang Haokip (Henglep), Letpao Haokip (Tengnoupal), LM Khuate (Churachandpur) and Paolienlal Haokip (Saikot).
The hybrid meeting, with Saitu MLA Haokholet Kipgen reportedly having attended in person while the rest of the Kuki-Zo legislators have joined online, was supposedly necessitated by the prevailing security situation with physical separations between communities.
According to sources, the main agenda of the meeting was speculated to be an effort on reviving six (6) of the Autonomous District Councils by means of an ordinance. The HAC had resolved on 11th May 2022 that elections to the six (6) ADCs should not be held until its recommendations for amendment of the Act to grant more powers to the councils and delimitation of the ten (10) ADCs have been accepted. Thus, according to sources, some MLAs reportedly opposed the proposal to revive six (6) ADCs, maintaining that any proposal of revival should be of the ten (10).
The objection by the MLAs indicates apprehensions of the hill communities that selective measures will be taken, and that hill areas will not have equal bargaining power as the valley.
The Sixth Amendment Act of 2022 substituted “ten” for “six”, indicating that the amended Act covers all the hill areas of Manipur in the eleven ADCs, and therefore a proposal to revive six of the ten ADCs would appear to be contrary to the amended statutory framework.
The Procedural and Substantive Constraints
The September 18 meeting is to be placed in the context of the constitutional and statutory framework that governs the functioning of the HAC and its recommendations. First, with regard to the jurisdiction of the HAC, the Second Schedule provides that the matters for which the recommendations of the Committee are to be solicited by the Council of Ministers and accepted by the Legislative Assembly are the “Scheduled matters”, which include development and economic planning, the organisation and functioning of District Councils, land use, forests, social customs, etc. However, paragraph 4(2) makes it explicit that the Money Bills are “excluded”. Paragraph 4(3) provides that the recommendation by the HAC should relate to “any law or any action in conformity with the overall financial provisions for the Hill Areas made in the Annual Budget” (emphasis added).
This indicates that the powers of the HAC with regard to the hill areas are consultative, and that the financial authority for appropriation and taxation, expenditure and borrowing, etc. continues to rest with the full Legislative Assembly.
It has been pointed out that Article 371C, which provides for the special administration for the hill areas, cannot be interpreted to allow bifurcation of the State Budget, and that therefore the annual appropriation of funds and revenues, as provided for in Article 202 and the Consolidated Fund specified in Article 266, constitutes a single budget and consolidated fund for the state, and the HAC is not empowered to deal with matters of a financial nature. Article 371C(2) which provides that “the Governor shall take steps in his direction for securing the proper functioning of the Hill Areas Committee” should not be construed to mean that the powers of the HAC extend beyond consultative and deliberative functions.
Second, it should be borne in mind that under Paragraph 4(3) of the 1972 Order, the recommendation of the HAC, if accepted by the Council of Ministers, should “normally” be given effect to, but “if the Council of Ministers considers it otherwise expedient to act in any matter” the matter should be “referred to the Governor whose decision thereon shall be final and binding”
Had the 1972 Order used the word “approval” in place of “referred”, the HAC would have been invested with the powers of a second chamber for enacting hill-specific legislation. By using the word “referred”, the framers provided for a mandatory consultative mechanism which, by virtue of its wording, cannot be interpreted to override the final authority of the full Legislative Assembly in matters of the hill areas.
Third, it may be noted that under Paragraph 9, a special responsibility is imposed on the Governor for securing the proper functioning of the HAC. In accordance with this special responsibility under 371C(2), the Governor “shall take steps in his direction for securing the proper functioning of the Hill Areas Committee”.
This provision implies that the Governor should not merely operate as a constitutional head but should also exercise a personal responsibility for the proper functioning of the HAC. If the executive fails to refer Bills to the HAC, if documents are not furnished, if quarterly reports are not filed, the Governor has the responsibility to step in.
Fourth, the HAC is dependent on the existence of functional District Councils to implement its recommendations. The 1971 Act which set up the eleven ADCs provides that the ADCs shall function as the implementing agencies for enacting laws and implementing policies in relation to the hill areas. Section 29 of the 1971 Act, which enumerates the functions of the ADCs and the powers of the District Councils, includes the power to impose taxes and duties through section 33, and the establishment of a Council Fund under section 43. Unless and until elected District Councils are in place, the recommendations of the HAC in the form of Acts and Rules of Procedure cannot have any practical effect. In fact, the proposal to revive six ADCs through an ordinance should be viewed in this context of fulfilling the requirements for the functioning of the HAC.
Constitution and the Unfinished Promise
The September 18 meeting of the HAC took place against the background of demands that greater autonomy be granted to the hill areas of Manipur. It is well known that the HAC has repeatedly moved resolutions that the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution should be extended to the hill areas of Manipur, but so far such demands have not received any attention from the state government.
The Sixth Schedule provides for the establishment of District Councils in the states of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura. Under the sixth schedule, the ADCs in Meghalaya and Mizoram have been conferred powers of legislation in specified fields, and the hill areas have exercised their own laws with regard to land and forest, water resources, village administration and health, and so on.
The distinction between the HAC which operates under article 371C and the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution is important. While the sixth schedule establishes ADCs with independent legislative powers, the Hill Areas Committee set up under article 371C can make recommendations only in consultation with the Council of Ministers and subject to the final approval of the Legislative Assembly. Kuki-Zo organisations have repeatedly alleged that various administrative functions of the hill areas have been transferred to the valley authorities, in violation of the constitutional safeguards. They have also demanded the restoration of the constitutional position of the Hill Areas Committee.
It seems that the September 18 HAC did not address this constitutional issue directly. The focus of the meeting seems to have been on immediate and practical measures, including revival of the ADCs, and restoration of a functional consultative mechanism. However, the very fact of the meeting raises the moot question whether the mechanism set up by article 371C is appropriate for protecting the hill areas in the context of Manipur where ethnic polarisation has rendered most institutions suspect.
The Limits of Consultation without Enforcement
The very structure of the HAC’s powers indicates that it is a consultative and deliberative body, whose recommendations are subject to the will of the Governor and Council of Ministers. Article 371C, paragraphs 4(2) and 6 provide for the mandatory referral of Bills and the submission of plan proposals and quarterly reports by the HAC. The Rules of Business, Rule 12A, provide for a procedure to resolve disputes between HAC and Council of Ministers. However, these provisions presuppose the cooperation of the Council of Ministers.
Under the current political conditions in Manipur, where the Meitei-Kuki-Zo and Naga-Kuki-Zo conflicts have resulted in massive ethnic violence since May 2023 and an entire population of hundreds of thousands is displaced and in danger, it is difficult to place reliance on the willingness of the executive to cooperate with the HAC. In fact, the September 18 meeting seems to have been necessitated by the fact that the HAC was not able to meet regularly. The Chairman described the September 18 meeting as a “product and successful sitting that reaffirmed the importance of collective deliberation and cooperation”. However, in the context of Manipur, the very fact of the meeting indicates that the HAC was unable to function regularly, and therefore the meeting which took place “after a long gap” seems to be an indication of irregular functioning of the HAC.
Moreover, paragraph 6 of the 1972 Order provides that “the Committee may discuss the Annual Financial Statement in so far as it relates to the Hill Areas…and may require separate showing of estimates…for the hill areas”, it does not empower the HAC to approve or reject the Annual Budget. The HAC can make recommendations but not decide on matters of appropriation and expenditure.
This limitation is not surprising, as the entire constitutional design of Article 371C is geared towards consultation without bifurcation, participation without parallelism. The HAC is a bridge, and not a fiscal authority on its own. However, when the bridges are not maintained, when meetings are not held regularly, when documents are not furnished, and when recommendations are ignored, the constitutional design becomes an impediment to addressing the needs of the hill areas.
The role of the Governor in ensuring that the procedures for consultation with the HAC are followed will be discussed later.
The Governor’s Role: Dormant or Active?
The Governor has a “special responsibility” under paragraph 9 of the 1972 Order “for securing the proper functioning of the Hill Areas Committee”. In particular, the Governor “shall take steps in his direction” for this end. The Governor’s “special responsibility” is elaborated on in article 371C(2) which provides that the Governor shall have special responsibility for the proper functioning of the HAC. The Governor is not bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers in matters relating to the Hill Areas Committee.
The Governor’s special responsibility under article 371C is a significant exception to the general rule that the Governor of a state is bound by the advice of his Council of Ministers. The importance of this provision indicates the concern of the framers of the Constitution for the rights of the hill areas of Manipur. In practice, however, it appears that the special responsibility of the Governor has rarely, if ever, been invoked. The repeated HAC resolutions on the need to extend the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution to Manipur and adopt the system of ADCs have not been acted upon. The irregular functioning of the HAC and its meetings have not resulted in action by the Governor under paragraph 9. It remains to be seen whether the September 18 meeting will be regarded as sufficient for fulfilling the Governor’s special responsibility under paragraph 9.
The Road Ahead: Consultation to Implementation
While the September 18 meeting of the HAC was undoubtedly an improvement over the previous meetings, it was also clear that the functioning of the committee depends critically on the will of the state executive. The very fact of the meeting being described as “productive and successful” because it “reaffirmed the importance of collective deliberation and cooperation” indicates that such meetings are rare.
The meeting itself does not appear to have adopted any specific resolutions or decisions, and was apparently focused on deliberations within the committee. The broader constitutional issue continues to remain outstanding, namely whether the mechanism provided by Article 371C is sufficient for protecting the hill areas of Manipur in a state where ethnic polarisation has rendered most institutions suspect.
The HAC is not a legislative authority, and it is not in a position to take decisions or enact laws. Its powers are limited to making recommendations, and the effectiveness of these recommendations depends on the attitude of the state executive. The HAC was set up to be an advisory body in matters relating to the hill areas, to promote integrated development, and to serve as a channel for the expression of hill opinion. In practice, however, it appears to have been hampered by the lack of functional institutions such as the District Councils for implementing its recommendations. The September 18 meeting appears to have signalled a turn around towards restoration of its functioning, but it remains to be seen what concrete steps will be taken to regularise its meetings and implement its recommendations.
(Dhiren A. Sadokpam is Editor-in-Chief, The Frontier Manipur)