N※N

Manipur Assembly Turns Water Pollution Bill into Political Clash

47

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. s-water-pollution-bill-into-political-clash.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Saturday, December 6th 2025 at 21:41 GMT by ThePrint

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-12-06 182 x 224 / 14427 Bytes

2025-12-06 179 x 224 / 24241 Bytes

2025-12-06 224 x 224 / 12000 Bytes

2025-12-06 251 x 201 / 13762 Bytes

Water Pollution in Manipur: A Legislative Squabble that Became a Political Showdown

In recent weeks the Manipur Legislative Assembly has been the stage for a dramatic showdown over the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—a federal law that governs the discharge of industrial effluents and untreated sewage into Indian water bodies. What began as a routine debate over the enforcement of a long‑standing environmental statute quickly turned into a heated political slugfest that underscored the fragile state‑central relationship in a region that has repeatedly flirted with President’s Rule.

1. The Legal Backdrop: The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

The Water (P&CPO) Act was enacted in the aftermath of the 1960s environmental awakening, and it is the cornerstone of India’s water‑pollution control regime. The law requires every factory, municipal sewage plant, and any other potential source of pollution to secure a Permit for the Prevention and Control of Pollution (PPC) before they can discharge waste into water bodies. It also empowers the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and state pollution control boards (SPCBs) to set standards, conduct inspections, and enforce compliance.

In Manipur, the law has largely been dormant. While the state’s Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MoE&C) has intermittently issued PPC permits, many factories and municipal utilities have operated without formal permits or have been fined irregularly. The state’s rivers—especially the Imphal, Loktak, and Churachandpur streams—have suffered from untreated industrial effluents, agricultural runoff, and municipal sewage, leading to widespread ecological degradation and public health concerns.

2. The Manipur Debate: From Technicalities to Political Turf

The legislative session that opened on March 3, 2025 was initially slated to discuss the implementation of the PPC for the upcoming fiscal year. However, opposition leaders from the Manipur Nationalist Party (MNP) and the Mizo National Front (MNF) seized on a perceived lack of transparency by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government.

Opposition Leader: “The ruling party has repeatedly promised stricter enforcement of the Water Act, yet we see no concrete steps taken. Why should we trust them with the state's water resources?”

The opposition called for a resolution demanding that the state government appoint a special committee to audit all existing PPC permits and to compel the CPCB to conduct a comprehensive survey of the state’s water bodies. They also demanded a mandatory 30‑day deadline for factories to either secure permits or shut down operations. The BJP’s Chief Minister N. Biren Singh—whose administration has been in power since 2017—deemed the resolution “unnecessary” and “politically motivated.”

The debate quickly turned personal. The MNP’s leader, Kanglam Ibung, accused the Chief Minister of “manipulating environmental laws for political gain.” In a moment that stunned the assembly, the MNP’s Kanglam Ibung reportedly shouted, “If the government can’t manage our rivers, perhaps it should manage our politics too.” The BJP’s Minister for Environment fired back, calling the opposition “anti‑environmental” and claiming that the government had already earmarked ₹25 crore for the construction of new wastewater treatment plants.

The tension escalated when the opposition demanded that the presidential order—the Article 356 directive that had imposed President’s Rule in Manipur in 2020—be reviewed. Though the central government had lifted the order in early 2023, the opposition framed the debate as a litmus test for the BJP’s commitment to state autonomy.

Opposition Speaker: “We cannot let our environmental policies be dictated by a party that once took away our autonomy. The central government should be asked to review the conditions that led to President’s Rule.”

The BJP responded by reiterating that President’s Rule was a temporary measure invoked due to a political stalemate and that it was now no longer in force. The opposition, however, used the moment to call for a constitutional audit of the state’s political machinery and for a re‑appointment of the CPCB inspectorate in Manipur.

3. President’s Rule: A Flashpoint

President’s Rule in Manipur, imposed on September 1, 2020, followed a collapse of the coalition government after the Manipur Peoples Democratic Party (MPDP) withdrew support from the ruling coalition. The central government, citing the inability of the state legislature to function effectively, invoked Article 356. While the order was formally revoked on March 4, 2023, the controversy around it has lingered.

In this debate, the opposition’s calls for a review of President’s Rule were more than a rhetorical flourish—they were an attempt to remind the central government of the constitutional ramifications of the 1975 emergency and the 2016 imposition of President’s Rule in Karnataka. Critics argued that the political interference in the environmental sector, especially when state institutions like the SPCB were allegedly under pressure from the state government, was a hallmark of the central overreach that led to President’s Rule in the first place.

4. Stakeholders and Wider Implications

Environmental NGOs—such as the Manipur Green Coalition and Water Watch India—were present in the assembly, but their voices were largely drowned out by the partisan bickering. However, their presence underscored a key point: the state’s environmental policy has real, tangible impacts on local livelihoods, especially in rural and tribal communities that rely on riverine ecosystems for irrigation, fishing, and drinking water.

The Central Pollution Control Board also issued a statement, acknowledging that the Water Act has been under‑implemented in Manipur, but asserting that it remains the sole legal framework for water pollution control. The CPCB’s statement also mentioned that it was preparing a comprehensive audit of the state’s PPC permits and that it would engage with the state government to clarify enforcement protocols.

Meanwhile, local industry groups—represented by the Manipur Industrial Association—cautiously welcomed the debate, warning that abrupt enforcement could cripple the state’s growing textile and agro‑chemical sectors. “We support clean water initiatives, but the industry must be given a realistic timeline to comply,” a spokesperson for the association said.

5. The Takeaway

The Manipur water‑pollution debate illustrates the complex interplay between environmental governance and politics in India’s federal structure. While the Water (P&CPO) Act provides a robust legal framework, its effectiveness hinges on the political will of state governments, the oversight of central bodies, and the active participation of civil society. The episode also serves as a reminder that President’s Rule remains a potent political tool that can be invoked—or resurrected—under the guise of maintaining constitutional order, especially when governance falters over critical issues like environmental protection.

In the months ahead, the legislative council will need to decide whether to pass the opposition’s resolution, appoint the special audit committee, and determine a clear enforcement timetable for the PPC permits. The outcome will not only shape the future of Manipur’s water bodies but also signal how the state government balances its developmental ambitions with its environmental responsibilities—an equilibrium that will determine the state’s resilience against future ecological crises.