Abstract

Constitutional democracy, as derived from the Preamble of the Indian Constitution, unequivocally affirms that sovereignty vests in the people. The Preamble begins with the words “We, the People of India”, making it clear that all authority of the State is derivative, conditional, and exercised as an agency on behalf of the sovereign people. The word “authority is derived from authorization” is accurate, as authority fundamentally stems from the formal granting of permission or sanction, which is the essence of authorization. Philosophers like John Locke and Rousseau argued that true authority must come from the consent of the people, otherwise it becomes tyranny. When institutions of governance breach this mandate—whether through inaction, abuse, or complicity—the people retain the ultimate authority to resist unlawful authority and to intervene in order to save the Constitution and restore justice. This principle is not novel: it finds its roots in the Magna Carta of 1215, was reasserted during the Indian freedom struggle through Mahatma Gandhi’s satyagraha and the Nupi Lal movement in Manipur, and is echoed in Dr. B. R. Ambedkar’s Constituent Assembly warnings against constitutional breakdown.

Freedom, as a natural right, precedes the Constitution; the Constitution is born of freedom, not the other way around. Consequently, the right to resist unlawful authority flows inherently from the people’s sovereignty. Non-cooperation movements or peaceful assertions against unconstitutional state action cannot be dismissed as lawlessness but must be recognized as legitimate democratic assertion. This article situates this principle within constitutional law, jurisprudence, and historical experience, and further contextualizes it through the ongoing constitutional crisis in Manipur since 3^rd May 2023, which exposed the systemic failure of both state and central authorities.

The analysis concludes that resistance to unlawful authority is not rebellion but constitutional restoration. A democracy that ignores this truth risks collapsing into authoritarianism. Thus, the article reaffirms that the Constitution breathes through the will of the people, and when institutions fail, the sovereign people remain its ultimate guardians

I.      Introduction

Democracy, at its root, is not a gift from rulers but a mandate of the governed. The Indian Constitution, unlike many charters of the past, does not derive legitimacy from a monarch, colonial overlord, or divine sanction. Instead, it proclaims in its very first line: “We, the People of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic…” This declaration is not ornamental—it embodies the essence of constitutionalism.

Government is not sovereign; the people are sovereign. The State functions as an agent, much like a trustee under a power of attorney, exercising authority delegated by its principal—the people. And as with any agency, when trust is breached, authority misused, or the fiduciary duty abandoned, the principal retains the right to revoke, resist, and restore what has been violated.

This truth has been recognized across centuries. From the Magna Carta of 1215, which forced the English crown to submit to the principle that authority is limited by the rights of subjects, to India’s long struggle against colonial rule, history vindicates those who resisted unlawful power in order to preserve liberty. It is no surprise, therefore, that when Mahatma Gandhi declared civil disobedience against unjust laws, or when Manipuri women rose during the Nupi Lal movements against colonial and economic exploitation, their actions were not lawless but profoundly rightful in spirit.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of India’s Constitution, was deeply aware of this principle. In the Constituent Assembly debates, he warned against “hero-worship” in politics and cautioned that if constitutional methods are abandoned, democracy would give way to dictatorship. Yet he also acknowledged that when institutions fail the people, the people themselves remain the final safeguard of constitutional morality.

In this context, the events in Manipur since 3rd May 2023 stand as a test of India’s constitutional framework. The outbreak of violence, the collapse of law and order, and the continuing inaction or complicity of institutions expose not only a crisis of governance but also a breakdown of the very machinery designed to uphold the Constitution. When both state and central governments fail in their constitutional duties—even under President’s Rule—the people’s sovereign right to assert their mandate comes to the fore.

This article seeks to explore that central question: When institutions fail, do the people retain the right to resist unlawful authority in order to protect the Constitution? The answer, grounded in history, jurisprudence, and natural law, is unequivocally yes.

II.   Constitutional Democracy and the People’s Mandate

The foundation of India’s constitutional democracy is the principle that sovereignty lies with the people. Unlike earlier regimes where sovereignty was located in monarchs, feudal lords, or colonial rulers, the Indian Constitution explicitly reverses this hierarchy. It is not Parliament, the Executive, or even the Judiciary that is supreme—it is the people who are supreme.

(a) The Preamble: People as the Source of Authority

The Preamble begins: “We, the People of India…”. This is not a rhetorical flourish but a juridical declaration of authority. The government of India functions not by divine right, not by conquest, not by hereditary succession, but by delegation from the people themselves.

This has a precise legal character: the people act as principals, and the State and its organs act as their agents. Like in the law of agency, when an agent exceeds authority, acts against the interest of the principal, or betrays trust, such action is voidable. Similarly, when the State betrays the trust of the people by abusing power or failing to protect constitutional rights, the people retain ultimate authority to revoke or resist such unlawful action.

(b) Ambedkar’s Vision of Popular Sovereignty

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, in the Constituent Assembly, was clear that democracy in India is founded not merely on legal text but on constitutional morality. He observed:

“Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil which is essentially undemocratic.”

Ambedkar warned that if institutions are captured by authoritarian tendencies, the people themselves must be vigilant to preserve democracy. He emphasized that the ultimate source of legitimacy of government action is not coercion, but consent.

(c) Constitutional Jurisprudence: Conditional Power of the State

Indian courts have repeatedly recognized that the government is not supreme over the Constitution. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225, the Supreme Court held that Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 is not absolute; it is limited by the basic structure of the Constitution. This principle reflects the idea that even the highest institutions of governance are bound by conditions placed by the people’s will as embodied in the Constitution.

Similarly, in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) Supp SCC 1, the Court struck down a constitutional amendment that sought to immunize the Prime Minister’s election from judicial review, holding that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure. This judgment reasserted that power is conditional, not absolute, and that institutions cannot override the people’s sovereignty.

(d) Agency Analogy: Power of Attorney

To understand this relationship, one may use the analogy of a power of attorney. When a principal grants authority to an agent, that authority is always conditional:

• It must be exercised in the principal’s interest.
• It cannot exceed the scope of delegation.
• It must be exercised in good faith.

Likewise, the Constitution delegates power to government institutions on behalf of the people. Abuse of this authority is not only a legal breach but also a constitutional betrayal. When such betrayal occurs, the principal — the people — retain the ultimate right to revoke, resist, or reorganize authority.

(e) Historical Recognition of People’s Sovereignty

This doctrine of conditional authority is not unique to India. Its echoes can be heard in Magna Carta (1215), where the English barons compelled King John to acknowledge that royal authority was subject to the rights of subjects. The American Declaration of Independence (1776) similarly asserted: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.”

India’s own freedom struggle embodied the same principle. When Mahatma Gandhi launched the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920) and Civil Disobedience Movement (1930), he did so not as an act of lawlessness but as an assertion that unjust laws, imposed without the consent of the governed, have no legitimacy.

Thus, constitutional democracy is not a one-way delegation of power. It is a conditional trust, constantly revocable by the people if betrayed.

• The article began from the failure of the State to fulfil welfare obligations, making taxation and fines morally/legally questionable.
• Then we connected this to Ambedkar’s warnings, sovereignty of the people, and institutional failure in Manipur.
• The key thread is: when the State betrays its constitutional duty, people as ultimate sovereigns can lawfully resist unlawful authority.

III.  Freedom as a Natural Right and the Constitution as Its Expression

The Constitution of India does not create freedom; it only recognises and safeguards what is already inherent in the human condition. Freedom is a natural right that predates all laws, charters, and constitutions. It is born with human existence, just as growth is born with the child. Just as no legislation can stop a child from growing into maturity, no statute can take away the natural phenomenon of liberty which belongs to every individual.

This truth was acknowledged during India’s independence struggle. Leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and countless unnamed martyrs did not wait for a written Constitution to justify their resistance against colonial power. Their claim was rooted in the moral certainty that freedom is a right inseparable from human dignity. In the same way, the women of Manipur during the Nupi Lal movements stood against economic exploitation long before independence, affirming that people need no external grant to assert their liberty.

It is precisely because of this truth that the Indian Constitution came into existence after independence. It is not the Constitution that gave India freedom; rather, India’s freedom gave birth to the Constitution. This sequence of history is vital: it places the people, not the State, as the ultimate source of sovereignty.

The Preamble confirms this by declaring, “We, the people of India… give to ourselves this Constitution.” The act is self-executing; it affirms that the people were already free and sovereign, and the Constitution was their instrument of governance. If this instrument is ever misused or corrupted by its agents—the institutions of government—the people, as principals, retain the natural authority to intervene, correct, and even resist.

Thus, when constitutional institutions fail to safeguard liberty and justice, they do not extinguish the people’s freedom. Instead, they expose their own illegitimacy. The sovereign people, endowed with natural liberty, are entitled to assert their authority, not as an act of rebellion against the Constitution, but as its deepest fulfilment.

IV.  Non-Cooperation and Constitutional Sovereignty

When Dr. B.R. Ambedkar warned the Constituent Assembly against “laying liberties at the feet of a great man” and reminded that constitutional morality must restrain those in power, he also pointed to the danger of blind submission. Democracy is not preserved merely through institutional forms but through the vigilance and assertion of the people.

This is where the philosophy of non-cooperation becomes relevant. Mahatma Gandhi’s Satyagraha was not a lawless act; it was a higher obedience to justice when the written law itself became an instrument of oppression. Gandhi taught that refusing to cooperate with unjust authority was not “taking law into one’s own hands” but restoring the moral law that precedes every constitution. The Indian freedom movement vindicated this principle repeatedly, from the Salt March to Quit India, showing that legitimate resistance is often the only way to revive the authority of justice.

The same spirit animated the Nupi Lal movements in Manipur, where women resisted exploitative colonial policies. These struggles were not unconstitutional—because the Constitution did not yet exist—but they were profoundly constitutional in spirit, embodying the same principles later enshrined in Part III of the Constitution: liberty, equality, and dignity.

Thus, non-cooperation and resistance cannot be dismissed as unlawful disruptions. They are a democratic assertion of constitutional sovereignty. When the people withdraw their cooperation from an authority that has breached its delegated trust, they are not undermining the Constitution—they are defending its foundation.

The courts, too, have acknowledged the centrality of popular sovereignty. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225, the Supreme Court held that the “basic structure” of the Constitution cannot be altered even by Parliament. What is this basic structure if not the living sovereignty of the people that animates the document? Similarly, in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) Supp SCC 1, the Court struck down attempts to insulate electoral victories from judicial scrutiny, reaffirming that rulers derive legitimacy only through constitutional processes grounded in the people’s will.

Therefore, non-cooperation in the face of betrayed trust is not a rupture from the Constitution, but an act of fidelity to its deepest meaning. It is the people’s way of saying that the Constitution belongs to them, not to the institutions that misuse it.

When institutions fail and unlawful authority threatens constitutional order, lawyers — as officers of the court — are often the first line of defense for citizens’ rights. To deny them any collective means of protest amounts to muting a critical constitutional voice. Non-cooperation and temporary abstention from work, when undertaken responsibly and for the higher purpose of safeguarding the Constitution, are not acts of disruption but democratic assertions of sovereignty.

Global experience supports this view:\n\n- United Kingdom: The 2014 nationwide barristers’ walkouts against cuts to legal aid were recognized as a legitimate means of defending access to justice, not merely a disruption of courts.\n- United States: Lawyers’ associations have organized mass boycotts and amicus efforts to resist unconstitutional executive actions — these were seen as essential to preserving the rule of law.\n- Pakistan Lawyers’ Movement (2007–2009): The legal fraternity’s protests and court boycotts were instrumental in restoring an unlawfully deposed Chief Justice and reaffirming judicial independence.\n- South Africa: During apartheid, lawyers often refused to cooperate with unjust trials, and such non-cooperation is now celebrated as part of the constitutional tradition of resistance to illegitimate authority.

These examples show that a responsible Bar, when it engages in collective protest, can preserve the independence of the judiciary and the constitutional order itself.

In the circumstances discussed above, the supreme court needs to revisit to reconsider its blanked prohibition on the lawyers’ right to strike, call for boycott or abstain from court work as laid down in ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs Union of Indian (2003) 2 SCC 45 & reaffirmed in subsequent judgments. Such a categorical ban, though aimed at protecting access to justice, may require nuanced re-examination to account for extraordinary situations where the legal fraternity acts as the last sentinel to uphold constitutional order and safeguard the rule of law.

Thus, resistance against unlawful authority—when peaceful and directed towards restoring justice—is neither rebellion nor lawlessness. It is, instead, the purest expression of constitutional sovereignty.

V.     Excessive Force and the Right to Protest: When Violence is Provoked

Sometimes, what is labeled as "violence" is actually a reaction to the excessive use of force by authorities against peaceful protesters. When people are provoked or suppressed despite exercising their right to protest peacefully, the resulting unrest cannot fairly be blamed on the protesters alone. To brand such incidents as "violent movements" is often an attempt to justify unlawful or disproportionate actions by the authorities and to delegitimize the people’s grievances.

The right to peaceful assembly and protest is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India, as well as under Article 21 which protects life and personal liberty. Similarly, international human rights law—such as Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—recognizes the right of citizens to gather peacefully and express dissent.

When peaceful protests are met with disproportionate force—lathi charges, arbitrary arrests, or even firing—the resulting retaliation or public anger cannot be simplistically branded as "unlawful violence." State provocation through excessive force breaks the chain of peacefulness first, inviting unrest as a consequence, not as a choice.

Courts in India have repeatedly emphasized that the use of force by authorities must be minimal, necessary, and proportionate. In Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re (2012) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that the right to assemble peacefully cannot be violated by arbitrary police action and that dispersal of crowds must follow lawful procedure.

To label every reactive incident as "rioting" or "unlawful assembly" risks criminalizing dissent and legitimizing state overreach. True constitutional governance requires that the State remain the first protector of fundamental rights, not their violator.

VI. The Principle of Non-Cooperation as Democratic Assertion

The common criticism against people’s movements is that they amount to “taking law into one’s own hands.” This phrase, however, ignores the essential difference between lawlessness and law-restoration. Non-cooperation and peaceful resistance, far from being anarchic, are democratic assertions of the people’s sovereignty.

1. Constitutional Mandate as Agency:

The Constitution, as declared in its Preamble, begins with “We, the People of India … do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution.” This makes the State and its institutions mere agents of the people, akin to a fiduciary acting under a power of attorney. When the agent betrays this trust, the principal—the people—retain the ultimate authority to correct and restore the mandate.

2. Non-Cooperation in Indian Freedom Struggle:

Mahatma Gandhi’s doctrine of non-cooperation was not a call for disorder, but a refusal to legitimize unjust authority. Gandhi recognized that obedience to unjust laws is itself a form of violence against truth. Hence, non-cooperation was the highest form of law-abidingness, because it placed justice above coercion.

3. Natural Right to Resist:

Freedom is not a gift from the Constitution; rather, the Constitution is born from the people’s innate freedom. Just as no law can prevent a child from growing, no institution can extinguish the natural right of the people to resist when governance turns oppressive. Resistance, therefore, is not derived from the Constitution but precedes it—it is embedded in the natural order of human dignity.

4. Comparative Lessons:

·       In the American tradition, Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience argued that citizens must not permit governments to overrule their conscience, and they have a duty to resist injustice.

·       South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggle under Nelson Mandela relied heavily on peaceful disobedience before it was forced into armed struggle. History remembers such movements not as crimes but as justice-restoring acts.

5. Judicial Acknowledgment in India:

The Supreme Court has occasionally echoed these principles:

·       In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248, the Court emphasized that personal liberty cannot be curtailed except by just, fair, and reasonable law. If the executive or legislature violates this principle, the people’s protest is a legitimate response.

·       In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1, the Court reaffirmed that democracy is part of the Constitution’s basic structure, and any subversion of it would itself be unconstitutional.

Thus, peaceful non-cooperation is not a challenge to the Constitution; it is an affirmation of its spirit. To dismiss such democratic assertion as lawlessness is to misunderstand the very foundation of constitutional democracy, which is built not upon blind obedience but upon active participation and vigilance by the people.

VII. Peoples sovereignty on Manipur crisis

The events in Manipur since 3rd May 2023 stand as a stark reminder of what Dr. Ambedkar warned against: the collapse of institutions, the failure of constitutional machinery, and the grave risk that the Republic might degenerate into authoritarian rule or lawless disorder when the custodians of power betray their mandate.

1. Background of the Crisis:

What began as a social and ethnic tension quickly escalated into violence, displacement, and targeted attacks on vulnerable groups. Reports of arson, killings, and destruction of homes and places of worship circulated across the state, revealing a complete paralysis of law and order. The State government appeared incapable — or unwilling — to protect its citizens, exposing the fragility of constitutional promises in times of crisis.

2.     Right of the People to Self-Defence in the Face of State Failure

When an attack amounts to external aggression or organized violence, the Constitution of India casts a solemn duty on the Union and the State under Article 355 to protect every State and its people from such aggression and internal disturbance. However, when the State fails to discharge this constitutional duty, the people do not lose their inherent right to life and security guaranteed under Article 21. In such circumstances, self-defence becomes not only a natural right but also a constitutionally implied right, flowing from the principle that the salus populi suprema lex (the welfare of the people is the supreme law).

The events of 3rd May 2023 started at Churachandpur exemplify this situation. When organized armed attacks were launched against the Meitei villages and population in Churanchanpur where the State machinery failed to provide immediate protection, the Meiteis were compelled to defend themselves. The retaliatory measures undertaken were thus not unlawful acts of aggression but an exercise of their right to protect life, liberty, and property as recognized under Sections 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code, which enshrine the general exceptions of private defence.

This principle is consistent with constitutional morality: no citizen is expected to silently perish when the State fails in its primary duty of protection. Jurisprudence has repeatedly recognized that the right to life is meaningless if it does not include the right to defend life against imminent and unlawful threat. In this context, the actions of the Meiteis on 3rd May 2023 cannot be viewed through the same lens as unlawful violence but as a constitutionally justified response to aggression in the face of institutional breakdown.

In such unprecedented circumstances, when the State and its institutions fail in their constitutional duty under Article 355 to protect citizens from aggression and internal disturbance — or worse, when their inaction or complicity aggravates the situation — the people’s act of rising to restore constitutional order cannot be branded unlawful.

The Meitei protesters who acted thereafter on 3rd May 2023 were not indulging in wanton violence, but were engaged in an attempt to safeguard life, liberty, and property, which are core elements of Article 21. The principle of salus populi suprema lex (the welfare of the people is the supreme law) justifies such actions as a last resort to maintain the rule of law when constitutional machinery has failed.

Punishing the people under such circumstances, while failing to fix accountability on the State authorities who invited the violence by their omissions or complicity, would amount to a double injustice — first by denying them protection, and then by criminalizing their defensive actions. Jurisprudence on private defence (Sections 96–106 IPC) and constitutional morality recognizes that no citizen can be expected to silently suffer death or destruction in the face of aggression when State protection is absent.

3. Breach of Constitutional Trust:

The essence of constitutional democracy is that authority flows from the people. The government, whether State or Union, is merely an agent exercising delegated power. When this agent fails to protect life, liberty, and dignity—the very foundations of the Preamble—the principal (the people) retains the sovereign right to resist, demand accountability, and restore justice.

The events in Manipur are not just a regional crisis; they symbolize the broader danger when institutions collapse. Silence of Parliament, executive delay, and judicial inaction together create a situation where the Constitution itself seems suspended in practice, though not in form.

VIII. People’s Sovereignty as the Final Safeguard

At the heart of constitutional democracy lies a truth often obscured by legal formalities: the people are the ultimate sovereign. Governments, courts, and legislatures are but instruments created to serve them. When these instruments malfunction, sovereignty does not disappear—it reverts back to its source.

1. Ambedkar’s Caution

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, during the Constituent Assembly Debates, issued a grave warning: India could preserve its democracy not merely through laws, but through constant vigilance, public spirit, and refusal to submit to authoritarianism. If institutions fail, people must act as the conscience-keepers of the Constitution.

1. The Constitutional Logic

·       The Preamble declares that authority flows from “We, the People of India.”

·       Article 356, though abused historically, implicitly recognizes that sovereignty is not an unbroken chain of command, but a trust. When that trust is broken, the people’s role as the original sovereign resurfaces.

·       Judicial maxims affirm that “ubi jus ibi remedium”—where there is a right, there must be a remedy. If courts withhold remedy, people are not condemned to suffer silently; they may fashion remedies through peaceful assertion of sovereignty.

1. Resistance as Constitutional, not Rebellious

History teaches that resistance is not rebellion when it seeks to restore lawful order. The Boston Tea Party (1773), the French Revolution (1789), and India’s Quit India Movement (1942) were not mere acts of defiance but declarations that rulers had violated their trust. Likewise, if citizens in Manipur or elsewhere demand justice amidst institutional collapse, they act not against the Constitution but for it.

1. Moral Duty of the Citizen

Just as rulers are bound by constitutional morality, citizens too must uphold it. But when institutions betray constitutional morality—through silence, neglect, or complicity—citizens are compelled to act, lest the Republic wither. In such moments, civil disobedience becomes civil duty.

1. The Protective Circle of History

• From Magna Carta to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), history affirms that power must bow before justice.
• The Indian freedom struggle reaffirmed that true sovereignty lives in the people’s collective conscience, not in the edicts of rulers.
• The Manipur crisis, therefore, must not be seen as a local disturbance, but as a national test: can the Indian people rise once more to remind their institutions that they serve, not rule?

1. The Philosophical Fulfilment
   In the end, the Constitution is but a written mirror of the unwritten sovereignty of the people. When that mirror cracks—as in Manipur—it is the people who must polish it back to clarity. As Gandhi said, “In the midst of darkness, truth and love alone endure.” Thus, when governments fail, resistance anchored in truth and non-violence becomes not only legitimate but sacred.

IX. Conclusion: The People as Guardians of the Republic

The Constitution of India is not a gift from rulers to the ruled. It is the solemn covenant of a free people, binding their institutions to justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. It came into existence only after India attained freedom, proving beyond doubt that freedom is the parent of the Constitution, not its child.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar reminded us that however perfect a Constitution may be, its survival depends upon the vigilance, courage, and morality of the people who live under it. Institutions may fail; governments may betray; courts may falter. But the people, as the original sovereign, cannot abdicate their duty. When authority becomes oppressive or indifferent, resistance in the form of peaceful assertion, non-cooperation, or satyagraha is not unconstitutional—it is the highest form of constitutional loyalty.

The events in Manipur since May 2023 are a reminder of this truth. The failure of the State machinery before President’s Rule, and the inertia of the Union after its imposition, reveal the fragility of constitutional safeguards when institutions grow silent. Yet, this very silence vindicates the people’s right to speak, to assert, and to act in defense of the Republic.

From Magna Carta (1215) to India’s own freedom struggle, history vindicates those who stood against unlawful authority to restore justice. Gandhi’s satyagraha, the women’s movement of Nupi Lal in Manipur, and countless acts of people’s resistance across centuries affirm that civil disobedience in defense of truth is not rebellion but duty.

Therefore, to dismiss such democratic assertions as “taking the law into one’s hands” is to misunderstand the essence of constitutional sovereignty. The Constitution itself derives from the people’s collective will to be free; it cannot then condemn the people for protecting that very freedom when institutions fail them.

In conclusion, let it be remembered:

• Governments and authorities are trustees, not masters.
• Sovereignty is delegated, not surrendered.
• The people remain the ultimate custodians of the Constitution.

If ever the Republic trembles under the weight of institutional silence, it is the people’s voice—firm, peaceful, and truthful—that must restore its balance. To resist unlawful authority is not to weaken the Constitution, but to save it.

Thus, the message of this age, from Magna Carta to Manipur, resounds with unbroken clarity:

“When the agents of the people fail, the people themselves must rise—not in anger, but in truth—to guard the Republic they created.”

Sorokhaibam Rabindra Singh
Advocate, High Court of Manipur