If the Lords Cannot Go, What Can the Serfs Do?

The recent incident involving Supreme Court judge N. Kotiswar Singh, who was reportedly denied access to Churachandpur, raises questions about the state of governance and law enforcement in Manipur. If a sitting judge of the highest court in the land cannot move freely within the state, what does this mean for ordinary citizens? This blatant disregard for the rule of law signals a failure in restoring normalcy, despite Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s clear directives that all roads should be free from threats and movement must be unhindered.
It has been more than a month since the Union government assured the people that all efforts were being made to bring stability to the state. Yet, incidents like this continue to expose the fragile grip of the administration over the situation. If a Supreme Court judge, a representative of justice and impartiality, faces such restrictions, it is an undeniable reflection of the state’s inability to ensure free movement and security for the general public.
Supreme Court judge, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, also asserted that challenges in Manipur can be overcome if people abide by the Constitution. His statement underscores the fact that the current situation in Manipur is not just a law-and-order problem but a constitutional crisis. When the principles enshrined in the Constitution are not upheld, governance collapses.
The primary responsibility of maintaining law and order lies with the state administration, led by the Governor and the Chief Minister. However, the continued disruptions, blockades, and threats indicate a failure to enforce the law effectively. The presence of security forces, often claimed to be in place to prevent such incidents, seems more performative than functional. If the assurance given by the Home Minister himself is not respected on the ground, it raises the question: Who is actually in control?
Such incidents also set a dangerous precedent. When high-ranking officials, judges, and other dignitaries are unable to travel freely, it emboldens those who believe they can operate outside the ambit of the law. This leads to further breakdown of administrative control, reinforcing an environment where impunity thrives. If a Supreme Court judge is not allowed to travel, then what hope do ordinary citizens have in accessing justice and free movement? The fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution become meaningless in such a scenario.
It is imperative for the Governor to take decisive action and ensure that the state machinery functions as it should. The prolonged inability to enforce law and order suggests either a lack of political will or an administrative paralysis—both of which are unacceptable. The people of Manipur deserve better; they deserve governance that upholds their rights and ensures their safety. The judiciary, the final arbiter of justice, must not be held hostage to lawlessness.
Amit Shah’s directive was clear—roads should be free from threats, and movement should be allowed. If this directive is not being implemented even after a month, it reflects poorly on the effectiveness of the state’s administration. There must be accountability, and swift measures should be taken to restore confidence in governance. If the authorities fail to act decisively now, it may set a precedent where governance itself is dictated by those who challenge the rule of law, rather than those entrusted to uphold it.
The question remains—if the lords of justice are not safe in their own land, what hope is there for the common people?