Manipur High Court issued notices to the Union Home Secretary, Defence Secretary, General Officer Commanding of the 57 Mountain Division, Inspector General of Assam Rifles (South), Chief Secretary of Manipur, and the Director General of Police, Manipur, seeking detailed replies within a stipulated period. The matter will be listed for further hearing after responses are received.
TFM Report
The High Court of Manipur has issued notices to the Union of India, the State of Manipur, and several senior security officials in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by activist Thokchom Sujata, president of Imagi Meira, challenging the continued existence of “buffer zones” that she alleges have effectively confined the Meitei community within the Imphal Valley since May 2023.
Filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the PIL seeks the Court’s intervention to restore the constitutional rights of free movement, equality, and livelihood guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 301. The petition describes the creation and perpetuation of buffer zones — initially meant as temporary security measures — as an “unlawful partition of Manipur” that has divided the State along ethnic lines.
Petition Alleges a “Silent Partition”
In her petition, Sujata contends that what began as temporary demarcations between Meitei and Kuki-Zo areas after the May 2023 violence have now hardened into de facto borders, turning major national highways into restricted corridors. “Lakhs of citizens, particularly those belonging to the Meitei community, have been unlawfully confined within the Imphal Valley for over a year and a half,” she stated in her affidavit.
According to the PIL, Meitei travellers are barred from moving beyond key points such as Phougakchao Ikhai on NH-2, Keithelmanbi on NH-37, and Pallel on the Imphal–Moreh road (AH-1). Even members of Parliament, journalists, and students have reportedly been stopped at these checkpoints.
Sujata, who also leads humanitarian initiatives under Imagi Meira, said the restrictions have disrupted trade, healthcare access, education, and livelihoods, leaving residents “trapped in their own homeland.” The PIL claims that despite assurances from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) that highways had reopened for free movement, the ground reality remains unchanged, with security forces and local armed groups still enforcing segregated zones.
Respondents Include Top Central and State Officials
The notice has been issued to the Union Home Secretary, Defence Secretary, General Officer Commanding of the 57 Mountain Division, Inspector General of Assam Rifles (South), Chief Secretary of Manipur, and the Director General of Police, Manipur. The petitioner argues that these authorities are directly responsible for maintaining law and order, protecting citizens’ rights, and ensuring unimpeded inter-state travel.
Sujata’s counsel, senior advocate Khaidem Mani, argued that the restrictions constitute a blatant violation of constitutional guarantees, stating before the Court that “freedom of movement cannot be suspended by practice or convenience — it can only be restricted by law, and even then, only temporarily and reasonably.”
The counsel further contended that the Union of India has failed its constitutional duty under Article 355, which obligates the Centre to protect states against internal disturbances and ensure that governance is carried out in accordance with the Constitution.
PIL seeks dismantling of all exclusionary buffer zones
Immediate dismantling of all exclusionary buffer zones and restoration of unrestricted civilian movement on NH-2, NH-37, and AH-1; Deployment of neutral central security forces to ensure safe and equal passage for all communities; Formation of a High-Powered Monitoring Committee under the Court’s supervision to oversee compliance; Interim reliefs such as escorted convoys for Meitei residents, permission for ambulances, journalists, and students to travel freely, and a status report from authorities on measures taken to restore normal movement.
The petitioner also urged the Court to declare the ongoing restrictions “unconstitutional, illegal, and void,” as they have no legislative backing and are being enforced through administrative and military control rather than judicial or statutory authority.
Background to Creation of Buffer Zones
The PIL provides a detailed account of the events following the ethnic violence that erupted on May 3, 2023, initially in Churachandpur and later spreading to other districts. The clashes between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities resulted in large-scale displacement and destruction of property.
In response, the Union Government deployed the Army and Central Armed Police Forces, who established buffer zones to separate the warring groups and prevent further bloodshed. However, the petitioner argues that these zones, described as temporary, have evolved into permanent lines of exclusion, preventing citizens from crossing between districts and cutting off access to national infrastructure.
Sujata claims that the Ministry of Home Affairs’ press release dated September 4, 2025, declaring the reopening of National Highway-2, was misleading, as local bodies like the Kuki-Zo Council and Village Volunteers Coordinating Committee (VVCC) continued to enforce the “sanctity” of buffer lines and restricted movement.
‘Constitutional Guarantees Cannot Be Suspended’
In her affidavit, Sujata stated that the continued enforcement of buffer zones amounts to a suspension of constitutional rights without any proclamation of emergency or due process of law. She described the ongoing restrictions as “a regime of arbitrary exclusion,” undermining not only individual rights but also the unity and integrity of the State.
“The Meiteis have been caged inside the Valley for 18 months. The highways — which are national properties — have become controlled borders manned by security forces and non-state actors. This is unconstitutional and unsustainable,” she said.
Civil Society Actions and Previous Petitions
Before approaching the Court, Imagi Meira and allied organizations such as Sekmai Kanba Lup and the Peoples Progressive Alliance Manipur (PPAM) had staged continuous sit-in protests since early September 2025 at Sekmai Bazaar, demanding free movement on national highways and resettlement of internally displaced persons. Memorandums were submitted to the Governor of Manipur, Ajay Kumar Bhalla, and the State BJP President, A Sarda Devi, but no concrete action followed.
Sujata had also filed an earlier PIL in May 2025 (PIL No. 13 of 2025) on similar grounds, which remains pending before the Court. The present petition, she said, was necessitated by “worsening ground realities and the State’s continued abdication of responsibility.”
Court’s Direction:
After hearing preliminary submissions, a Division Bench headed by chief justice issued notices to all respondents, seeking detailed replies within a stipulated period. The matter will be listed for further hearing after responses are received.
Legal observers say the case is significant as it raises fundamental questions about constitutional rights, the authority of the Union over national highways, and the limits of administrative control during internal conflict. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for both governance and human rights in conflict-affected regions of India.