The resignation of N. Biren Singh as Chief Minister of Manipur on February 9 marked a significant political shift in the state. Though his resignation was accepted, Governor A.K. Bhalla advised him to continue as caretaker Chief Minister until a new government was formed. However, the failure of elected representatives to stake a claim for leadership led to the suspension of the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly. Now, with Article 356 imposed, executive power has been transferred to the Governor, effectively suspending the Chief Minister, Ministers, and MLAs.
With the absence of a politically led government, a pertinent question arises: What happens to political appointments made by the previous administration? These appointments, often discretionary and outside formal constitutional sanction, were made in the interest of the ruling government and its political party. These so-called “political posts” are now under scrutiny, raising concerns over their legitimacy and continuity.
Among the many political appointments in Manipur, a few significant ones include the State Planning Board, responsible for advising the government on development planning and resource allocation, with its chairperson typically a senior political figure appointed by the ruling party. The Manipur Tourism Advisory Committee, established to promote tourism, has its chairperson often appointed from political leadership, reflecting government tourism priorities. The Industrial Development Corporation oversees industrial growth and investment, with its board including a chairperson appointed by the state government, often someone with political or administrative ties. Other bodies such as the Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Board and Loktak Development Authority also have politically affiliated individuals holding the posts of Chairman or Vice Chairman.
The core issue here is whether these political appointees should continue in office during President’s Rule. If their positions were granted solely for political gain rather than administrative efficiency, their legitimacy is questionable. While these appointments do not violate the Constitution outright, they rely on executive powers, legislative rules, and party regulations. However, with Article 356 in effect, the absence of an elected government raises ethical and governance concerns. Should these political appointees continue holding office when the government that appointed them no longer functions? Do these appointments serve any purpose under the current bureaucratic administration led by the Governor? If these positions were politically motivated rather than merit-based, does their continuation undermine governance credibility?
The answer lies in differentiating between advisory roles and statutory positions. While advisory roles are political by nature and should be reviewed under President’s Rule, statutory positions governed by state laws and central frameworks may have legal protection, necessitating a case-by-case assessment. The situation in Manipur highlights a broader issue seen in many states under President’s Rule. There is a pressing need for reform in how political appointments are handled when an elected government is suspended. A clear mechanism should be in place to assess whether political appointees should continue or be removed under President’s Rule. The selection process for these positions should be based on expertise and experience rather than party allegiance. A state-level law should define the scope, tenure, and conditions under which political appointees may continue in office during periods of governance transition.
Manipur’s current political impasse underscores the fragile nature of political appointments in Indian governance. While such appointments serve the interests of the ruling party, their validity comes into question once the government is no longer in power. Under President’s Rule, a thorough review is necessary to ensure that these positions are filled based on merit rather than political convenience. Until such reforms are enacted, political appointments will remain a contentious issue in governance transitions.