Back
Supreme Court Asks Kuki and Naga Groups for Comprehensive Plan to End Manipur Highway Blockades
The
on Friday stressed the urgent need for a holistic resolution to the ongoing highway blockades in Manipur, observing that roads are the
"lifeline of the common person"
and cannot be reopened selectively. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana issued directions to all contending communities—including Kuki-Zo and Naga groups—as well as the State government and the
to submit comprehensive proposals to ensure that all blocked national highways in the state become fully operational.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed under by the , which alleged that a Naga civil society group had enforced an economic blockade on National Highway-2 (NH-2) in the Kangpokpi district since , severely disrupting the supply of food, fuel, medicines, and other essential commodities to Kuki-Zo inhabited areas. The petition further claimed that the blockade had caused a humanitarian crisis, including shortages of food and disruptions to schooling.
Highways as Lifelines
During the hearing, the Chief Justice underscored the shared burden of the blockades, stating,
"Blocking of highways is not serving anybody’s cause. Hardship is faced by everyone."
He further observed that the continuing obstructions were hurting ordinary people and disrupting the supply of essential commodities to the landlocked state. The Bench made it clear that any must be carefully crafted to avoid further deterioration of the volatile ground situation.
"Why don't both groups realize that blockade of highway does not serve either group? You give us a proposal how highways can be. We will implead NHAI also… highways are lifeline of common person,"
CJI Kant remarked.
Justice Bagchi echoed this sentiment, adding,
"It can’t be
that one highway is open and another is not."
The Bench rejected the approach of seeking relief only for a single highway, emphasising that a comprehensive resolution covering all blocked routes is essential. The Court also directed NHAI to be impleaded as a party, given its statutory role in maintaining national highways.
Humanitarian Crisis Alleged
, appearing for KWOHR, submitted that the blockade had resulted in acute shortages of food and had severely affected schooling in the affected areas. He claimed that while Kuki militants had lifted their counter-blockade on NH-202, Naga militants continued to obstruct NH-2. The petitioner sought immediate court directions to restore free movement of essential commodities and to protect the constitutional rights of the affected residents, including the under .
In contrast, an advocate representing a Meitei organisation—which had filed an impleadment application—opposed the petition, describing it as a "mischievous petition." The counsel alleged that the Kuki community had been responsible for blocking highways across Manipur since the outbreak of ethnic violence in May 2023, and that the present petition was a one-sided account. The Bench acknowledged the conflicting claims but declined to issue sweeping directions without a full picture.
Court’s Directive for Comprehensive Proposals
The Supreme Court issued notices to the and other concerned parties, directing them to submit detailed proposals rather than traditional counter affidavits.
"We don’t want a counter affidavit. We want a proposal,"
the Court said. The Kuki petitioner was asked to submit a comprehensive plan for reopening the blocked highway, while the Meitei organisation was directed to provide details of all other blocked highways in the state along with proposals for their restoration. The Bench stressed that the solution cannot be fragmented:
"The issue raised in larger public interest is regarding removal of blockade of NH2 and restoration of supply of services… During the hearing, it is submitted that few more highways have been blocked in Manipur. Issue notice. Newly added respondent, instead of filing counter, should file details of other national highways/highways lying blocked along with a proposal as to how all blocked highways can be made functional."
The Court also cautioned that if it were to issue broad, coercive directions and the state government attempted to forcibly remove the blockades, it could trigger violent confrontations against innocent people. Therefore, it opted for a collaborative approach, asking all stakeholders to work towards a mutually acceptable solution.
Background of the Conflict
The current dispute is rooted in the broader ethnic conflict between the Meitei and tribal Kuki-Zo communities that erupted in Manipur on , following a rally organised by the . The violence, which spread across the state, led to the deployment of central paramilitary forces and resulted in deep community polarisation. A fresh Naga-Kuki confrontation emerged in after a series of abductions. On , civilians from both communities were abducted in the Kangpokpi and Senapati districts. While many were released, six Naga men remained unaccounted for. Their bodies were recovered on , nearly a month later, triggering protests and demands for action.
In response, Naga civil society organisations reportedly imposed a blockade on NH-2, the principal supply route connecting Imphal with Dimapur in Nagaland. Kuki groups later organised counter-blockades on NH-202. The blockades have disrupted the supply of essential goods to communities on both sides, exacerbating an already fragile humanitarian situation.
Legal Implications and Next Steps
The Supreme Court’s decision to seek comprehensive proposals rather than issuing immediate injunctions reflects a pragmatic judicial approach to complex, intractable conflicts involving deep-seated ethnic animosities. By involving NHAI and requiring all parties to submit concrete plans, the Court is attempting to facilitate a negotiated solution while preserving its . The emphasis on a "" vs. "comprehensive" resolution also signals that the Court will not entertain narrow, self-serving reliefs that could deepen divisions.
For legal practitioners, this case illustrates the use of in addressing public emergencies that implicate , particularly the and the . The Court’s inclination to prefer dialogue over in sensitive security situations may serve as a model for other communal disputes. The next hearing will likely focus on evaluating the feasibility of the submitted proposals, with the possibility of the Court appointing a mediator or a fact-finding committee to oversee the implementation.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has firmly placed the onus on the rival communities in Manipur to devise a workable plan to reopen the state’s lifelines. By insisting on a comprehensive, rather than , approach, the Bench aims to restore normalcy without exacerbating existing tensions. The success of this will ultimately depend on the willingness of the Kuki, Naga, and Meitei groups to converge on a mutually acceptable framework. In the meantime, the people of Manipur—caught in the crossfire of blockades—await the outcome of a process that holds the promise of renewed access to essential supplies and the gradual return of peace.
