The difference between "of” and "or" after "Appointment"
Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Orders, 1972

Homen Thangjam *

Recently, we encountered two versions of the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Orders, 1972. The original version, published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary on 20th June 1972 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, states: “The appointment of succession of Chief or Head man.”

In contrast, the version adopted by the Manipur Legislative Assembly reads: “The appointment or succession of Chief or Head man.”

Aside from this single-word difference in a phrase related to Article 9 of the Scheduled Matters of the Hill Areas Committee under the Second Schedule, both documents are identical.

This raises two critical questions. First, does the Manipur Assembly have the authority to alter or add new words to a presidential order? Second, how did the Assembly overlook this significant discrepancy for decades, enabling vested interests to exploit the modified phrasing?

The difference hinges on the use of “of” versus “or” after “appointment.” The original phrasing, “appointment of succession”, suggests a singular, formal process for determining a successor by customary law. It implies that even if the eldest son is traditionally the natural heir, the succession must occur through a formal appointment, subject to intervention by the Hill Areas Committee (HAC) in disputes.

In contrast, the adopted version, appointment or succession”, clearly distinguishes between two processes: one where a chief is formally appointed and another where succession follows customary, often hereditary, practices.

This dual phrasing has allowed chiefs, particularly among the Kuki, to bypass the customary rule favouring the eldest son by appointing other sons as chiefs, which has led to the establishment of new villages (often in forest areas, sometimes in violation of forest laws) and even instances where women become chiefs, contradicting tradition.

Legally, the Gazette Extraordinary version is the original and binding constitutional text, as it directly emanates from the constitutional amendment process initiated by the President of India. Though more precise, the Assembly’s adopted version is not the original document.

Should this issue be litigated, judicial experts will likely scrutinise the context, purpose, and legislative history of Article 371C and question whether the Assembly had the authority to modify a presidential order.

The adoption of the altered phrase has had far-reaching consequences. The original Gazette version implies a strict, singular mechanism ensuring that succession follows customary norms and legal oversight.

However, the modified version facilitated multiple interpretations, allowing the proliferation of unauthorised new villages, many established by individuals exploiting the loophole for personal or economic gains.

Creating new villages increased significantly after implementing the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (now the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act) in 2006, as villages became eligible for government funds and benefits. Let’s agree: these chiefs have looted in cohort with corrupt officials.

Additionally, this alteration in legal language has allowed wealthier Kuki individuals to establish villages solely for financial benefits, often disregarding traditional norms. The resulting surge in village creation has put significant pressure on forest resources, leading to deforestation and environmental degradation.

The unchecked expansion of new settlements has also posed challenges in governance, law enforcement, and public administration, particularly regarding jurisdictional disputes and the equitable distribution of government resources.

Today, Manipur is grappling with violence that can be partially traced to administrative lapses stemming from this altered phrasing. The government’s efforts to evict encroachers from protected and reserved forests, nullify illegal villages, and crack down on narco-terrorism have ignited tensions.

The government could have mitigated these issues had the legislative and executive authorities of the past exercised foresight and adhered to the original constitutional text. A simple but crucial distinction between “of” and “or” has had profound implications, demonstrating how a seemingly minor textual modification can shape socio-political landscapes and exacerbate legal ambiguities.

The first government after Manipur gained statehood had erred, and its successors followed suit in committing more mistakes while filling up their pockets. They did not love Manipur.

To prevent further misuse of legislative loopholes, it is imperative that the government reviews and rectifies such discrepancies in legal documents. Greater scrutiny must be exercised to ensure that any modifications align with constitutional mandates.

Moreover, a comprehensive assessment of how these changes have affected Manipur’s socio-political and environmental landscape is necessary to devise appropriate remedial measures. By addressing these concerns proactively, policymakers can work towards restoring legal clarity, curbing unauthorised settlements, and ensuring that governance structures remain aligned with constitutional principles.