Introduction
As of August of 2023, Manipur has witnessed over 60,000 Internally Displaced Individuals (hereinafter referred to as IDPs) induced by persistent violence. Escalating from a day-long attack along the Bishnupur-Churachandpur border areas, this issue has become a national concern. Consequently, this displacement has resulted in the children of Manipur facing an uncertain future by disrupting their education and depriving them of a stable environment, while individuals slip into depression due to the devastating loss of livelihoods, residences, and lives.
The government relied on the Disaster Management Act of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as DMA) to rehabilitate and provide relief in response to this humanitarian crisis. While this Act has proven effective in handling natural disasters and related emergencies, its applicability is to be questioned when empowered to govern complex socio-political factors and issues involving deliberation upon human rights.
In the course of this blog, the authors argue that the violation of the Fundamental Right to Substantive Equality requires urgent attention and intervention from the courts and government, urging them to establish clear and adequate guidelines.
Right to Equality
The crux of the present issue lies in the displacement of nearly 67,000 people living in Manipur due to communal violence. With over 70 people dead over 2 months and 1,700 buildings and homes reduced to ashes, concern over the fundamental rights of the IDPs ought to be raised. For the past 16 months, thousands of IDPs in Manipur have languished in relief camps while being stripped of their livelihood and basic human rights. To provide relief, the government of Manipur has taken aid from the DMA.
It is to be noted that the DMA was enacted to primarily address issues arising out of natural disasters. “Disaster” as defined in the Report on National Management of Disaster Management, is a “catastrophe, mishap, calamity or grave occurrence from natural or man-made causes, which is beyond the coping capacity of the affected community”. It can be reasonably inferred that communal violence and riots are events that the affected community can handle, setting them apart from disasters that surpass local coping abilities. The Manipur Disaster Management Plan maps out disasters like earthquakes, floods, landslides, etc. thereby providing no redressal for disasters arising from communal violence. Evidently, the State bypasses its responsibility of addressing the root cause of the problem by putting IDPs of communal violence on the same footing as victims of natural disasters.
In Ram Krishma Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, the Supreme Court described the jurisprudence of equality before the law, under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, and delineated it to include the principle of Substantive Equality. ‘Substantive Equality’, as recognized in Griggs vs Duke Power, refers to when two people, who for a reasonable classification, are unequal in all aspects should be treated unequally. Correspondingly, a distinct classification should be drawn between people displaced by natural disasters and those by communal riots. The intelligible difference between natural and human-made disasters is evident from the fact that uncontrollable forces of the environment cause the former, while the latter stems from deliberate actions and socio-political failures.
In cases of displacement due to conflicts, persons may be both the victims and the actors with the potential to end the violence. Following UNHCR’s Guidelines on Forced and Unlawful Displacement, this forced displacement of the victims in Manipur puts a duty on the state to curb the displacement by first addressing and limiting the circumstances related to it. However, this finds no mention in the DMA possibly owing to the mischaracterisation of conflicts as “disasters”.
This mischaracterisation of the issue in Manipur and the applicability of the DMA on IDPs thus directly violates the Right to Equality and the principle of Substantive Equity. The former requires immediate rehabilitation to restore lives while the latter requires restoration of law and order and communal harmony.
Interventions by the Courts
In 1997, in the case of Vishakha vs State of Rajasthan, the courts gave rise to the concept of judicial legislation. To address the legal vacuum that existed in cases of sexual harassment at the workplace, the Supreme Court in its power to ensure complete justice under Article 142 and Article 32, issued guidelines for the protection of women. These guidelines aligned with the International Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women [CEDAW]. As per Article 141, these guidelines would be in force until the legislature prepared a comprehensive policy for the same.
Thus, the Indian courts have established precedents of judicial activism when domestic legislation fails to meet contemporary demands without breaching the thin line of judicial overreach. In the present situation, the DMA 2005, does not provide explicit protection for conflict-induced IDPs. Till the time the legislature forms specific laws, the court can formulate guidelines for the protection of IPDs.
These guidelines could be formulated in accordance with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Internally Displaced Persons (hereinafter referred to as GPID). Principles 7 and 8 mandate the right against arbitrary displacement and the prevention of the Right to Life, Dignity, and Security in the displacement process, respectively. These principles thus ensure the protection of IDPs, irrespective of their legal status in any country.
India has still not recognized the GPIDs. This non-recognition thus gives rise to a legal vacuum and impunity on the part of the government to take on any obligation for the protection of IDPs. Nonetheless, the rights bestowed by the GPID, resonate with several other international covenants, like the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1933 which has been ratified by India, and most importantly the Constitution of India, which remains the ultimate guiding light for the protection of IDPs. And for India, even if not a signatory, these principles serve as a guiding principle in public interest towards the formation of our national policy and a legal institutional framework that deals with IDPs.
India has been home to thousands of Internally Displaced Persons. From the Kashmiri Pandits in the 1990s to the displaced of Manipur in 2024. Consequently, the status of IDPs has been in question for a long time. In 2021 over 30 Public Interest Litigations were filed in the High Court and Supreme Court seeking protective measures for the IDPs who were forced to flee from West Bengal to Assam due to post-election violence in West Bengal.
The situation today in Manipur has again brought the ‘courts’ into question. The case of Dinganglung Gangmei vs Mutum Churamani Meetei and Others was heard in May 2023 after two women from the Kuki Tribe were paraded naked. This incident not only brought into question the ethnic violence between the Meities and Kuki Tribes but also the status of protection of the IDPs, especially minority groups like women. Several SC orders such as in the case of N. Kipgen and Ors. vs Vineet Joshi and Ors. questioned the non-action on the part of the government in protecting the lands and properties of the IDPs.
The judiciary’s recurring involvement in IDP cases underscores an urgent need for a clear framework to protect them. Despite numerous petitions, the courts have largely provided case-specific relief without establishing comprehensive guidelines. The case of Manipur emphasizes the need for the judiciary to create interim guidelines to protect IDPs until the legislature enacts specific laws.
Intervention by the Government
In the wake of the current situation in Manipur that has led to the displacement of thousands and countless others, a nationwide policy to deal with the issues of IDPs is the need of the hour. Over 20 countries have adopted specialized legislation or policies specifically addressing the protection of IDPs in their country. The legislative action in India could be instituted in two ways.
The legislature could expand the scope of the already existing DMA to include the protection and rehabilitation of conflict IPDs. The DMA has already established disaster management authorities at the national, state, and district levels, along with dedicated disaster response funds for the relief and rehabilitation of disaster-related IDPs. These existing institutions are well-positioned to extend their scope to include the protection and rehabilitation of conflict-related IDPs.
Contrastingly, the legislature could formulate a ‘separate legislation’ that can be bifurcated into 3 heads, to specifically deal with the 3 causes of internal displacement i.e. Conflict, Natural Disasters, and Industrial Projects. Such legislation could help tackle the problem of varied and delayed responses toward conflict IPDs.
Therefore, the government must formulate a general framework that ensures protection and rehabilitation for IDPs across all the states. Additionally, for the effective implementation of this legislation, within the State Disaster Management Plan, a separate contingency plan localized to the needs of that state must be customized.
Conclusion
The crisis in Manipur, exemplified by the displacement of tens of thousands of individuals due to communal violence, underscores the urgent need for a legal and policy framework that adequately addresses conflict-induced displacement. Addressing the crisis demands more than logistical support; it requires recognizing the deeper socio-political and ethnic roots of the issue and respecting the fundamental right to equality and dignity of the displaced.
India presently, lacks a comprehensive policy for addressing the needs of refugees and internally displaced individuals, often leading to inconsistent response from the government at the National and State level. Difficulty in maintaining consistent and uniform data to support and uphold rights of IDPs, puts their constitutional rights as perils.
The government, therefore, in collaboration with the courts, has a critical role to play in addressing the unique challenges of conflict-related displacement.
This blog is written by Sarakshi Kapila and Gunjan Sharma, students at RGNLU.