Aribam Dhananjoy Sharma vs State of Manipur and 3 Others

ca
REPORTABLE

Sl. No. 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL

WP(C)No.173 of 2026

Shri Aribam Dhananjoy Sharma, aged about 48 years, S/o
Aribam Priyogopal Sharma, a resident of Thangmeiband
Lourung Purel Leikai, P.O. Lamphel, P.S. Imphal, Imphal
West District, Manipur-795001.
……Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Manipur, New Civil Secretariat, South
Block, Mantripukhri, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Secretariat,
Imphal East District, Manipur-795002.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personal &
Administrative Reforms (Administrative Reforms
Division), Government of Manipur, New Civil Secretariat,
North Block, Mantripukhri, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S.
Secretariat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795002.
3. The Principal Secretary (Law), department of law and
Legislative Affairs, Government of Manipur, New Civil
Secretariat, North Block, Mantripukhri, P.O. Mantripukhri,
P.S. Secretariat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795002.
4. Smt. Nungshitombi Athokpam, aged about 60 years, W/O
Sanjenbam Jogendro Singh, a resident of Uripok
Bachaspati Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur, and presently functioning as State
Information Commissioner, Manipur Information
Commission, Imphal.
……Responden ts

Page 1 of 7

BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA

For petitioner Mr. Meihoubam Rakesh Singh, Advocate
Date of Judgment & Order 06.05.2026

JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(ORAL)

(M. Sundar, CJ)

[1] This order will now give a closure to the captioned ‘Writ
Petition’ (‘WP’ for the sake of convenience and brevity).
[2] Though it is a closure simplicitor, an interesting
proposition/principle of law stands propounded and therefore, this Court
deems it appropriate to extract and reproduce proceedings/orders
made in three earlier listings viz., the listings on 09.03.2026, 30.03.2026
and 01.04.2026. Proceedings/orders made in these three listings read
as follows:
‘ 09.03.2026
Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier
proceedings made in the previous listings on 26.02.2026 which
reads as follows :
‘26.02.2026.
[1] Mr. Meihoubam Rakesh Singh, learned counsel on
record for the writ petitioner is before this Court.
[2] At the outset, it is seen that a unique situation has
arisen. In the captioned ‘Writ Petition’ (‘WP’ for the sake of
brevity), the writ petitioner has primarily sought issue of a
writ of Quo Warranto qua appointment of R4 (Smt.
Nungshitombi Athokpam, aged about 60 years, W/O
Sanjenbam Jogendro Singh, a resident of Uripok
Bachaspati Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
Page 2 of 7

District, Manipur) as State Information Commissioner,
Manipur Information Commission.
[3] Learned counsel submits that the writ petitioner
who is a journalist is espousing a public cause, writ
petitioner is a public-spirited person and he has filed the
captioned WP but the writ petition was filed resorting to
Category Code No. ‘ 10043 ’ vide Appendix – 22 of ‘High
Court of Manipur Rules, 2019’ (‘said Rules’). Code ‘ 10043 ’
is for matters pertaining to ‘ Selection and appointment ’.
Learned counsel for WP petitioner very fairly, adverting
inter-alia to paragraph 1 of the WP pleadings as well as the
pre-WP representation sent by writ petitioner being a
representation dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure-A/10)
submitted that though the writ petitioner is espousing a
public cause, resorting to Public Interest Litigation Code
i.e., Code No. ‘ 10194 ’ may become a hurdle as the
captioned matter can be construed as a service matter and
the issue of service matter in a PIL may arise. We place on
record our appreciation for the fair stand taken by the
learned counsel for WP petitioner.
[4] A careful perusal of the WP pleading, the pre-writ
petition representation being representation dated
19.01.2026 (Annexure-A/10), the prayer in WP and the
nature of the legal grind qua captioned WP bring to light
that this is a case of importance and complexity. Therefore,
as this Bench is presided by the Chief Justice who is the
master of roster, exercising powers under Rule 3(1) and
proviso thereat of said Rules, the captioned matter is
directed to be listed before Division Bench (DB) presided
by Chief Justice. To be noted, Rule 3(1) and the proviso
thereat of said Rules makes it clear that listing before
Single Bench has an exception and the exception is where
the Chief Justice ‘otherwise directs’.
[5] In the normal circumstances, such an order would
not have been made on the judicial side but as the writ
petition has been numbered and listed before this DB and
as the question has been brought to the notice of this court
it has become necessary to make this part of instant judicial
order today more so as this DB presided by Chief Justice
has the benefit of hearing learned counsel on record for the
writ petitioner though such orders in the normal course are
made by Chief Justice on the administrative side.
[6] It is made clear that the captioned matter is being
taken up by DB only owing to the importance and by
exercise of powers of Chief Justice under Rule 3 (1) and
proviso thereat without expressing any opinion one way or
the other as to whether it should be treated as a PIL or not.
This question is left open and will be decided as the matter
progresses.
[7] List under the same cause list caption ‘MOTION’ on
Monday week i.e., 09.03.2026 (we are saying Monday
week owing to the intervening Yaoshang holidays).
Page 3 of 7

[8] List on 09.03.2026.’
[2] Today, Mr. Meihoubam Rakesh Singh, learned counsel on
record for the writ petitioner is before this Court.
[3] Learned counsel submits that appointment of respondent
No. 4 as State Information Commissioner of Manipur
Information Commission is hit by Section 15(3) of ‘the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005)’ [‘RTI Act’ for the sake of
brevity] which says that State Information Commissioners shall
be appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of a
committee consisting of Hon’ble Chief Minister (who shall be
Chairman of the Committee), Hon’ble Leader of the Opposition
in the Legislative Assembly and a Hon’ble Cabinet Minister to
be nominated by Chief Minister.
[4] Adverting to a reply dated 02.01.2026 in response to writ
petitioner’s query/request for information under RTI Act,
learned counsel submits that the response of Public Information
Officer under the RTI Act says that due to President’s Rule,
Committee under Section 15(3) of RTI Act was not constituted
and that the process was handled via Governor in Council. The
relevant query and the answer as found in the tabulation
is as follows :
Para Query Reply
The Selection Committee
under Section 15(3) of the RTI
Act, 2005, consists of the
Chief Minister (Chairperson),
the Leader of Opposition in
the Legislative Assembly, and
a Cabinet Minister nominated
by the Chief Minister.
However, due to President’s
Rule, it was not constituted;
the process was handled via
Governor in Council.
3 Please provide :
(a) the names and
designations of all
members of the
Selection
Committee;
(b) the dates on which
the Committee
met; and
(c) copies of any
dissent notes or
objections
recorded by any
member.

[5] On 14.11.2025, when respondent No. 4 was appointed as
State Information Commissioner, President’s Rule was in
vogue in Manipur. In this view of the matter, this Court drew the
attention of learned counsel to ‘assumption of functions’ qua
Articles 356 and 357 of the Constitution of India.
[6] Faced to the above situation, learned counsel sought time
to produce a copy of the afore-referred Presidential
proclamation and any other document/s in this regard which
may be of relevance to the legal drill at hand.
Page 4 of 7

[7] Request of learned counsel for writ petitioner acceded to.
[8] List under the caption ‘ADJOUNRED ADMISSION’ on
30.03.2026.

‘30.03.2026
[1] Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier
proceedings made in the previous listing on 09.03.2026.
[2] Today, Mr. M. Rakesh Singh, learned counsel for writ
petitioner, adverting to afore-referred earlier proceedings,
submits that he has filed a copy of the Presidential
Proclamation and revocation of the same on 26.03.2026 vide
filing No. 1115 but the same has not been placed before this
Court today. Let the Registry do the needful by next listing.
[3] List day after tomorrow i.e., 01.04.2026 under the same
cause list caption i.e., ‘ADJOURNED ADMISSION’.
[4] List on 01.04.2026’

‘01.04.2026
[1] Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier
proceedings made in the previous listings.
[2] Adverting to earlier proceedings made in previous listing
on 30.03.2026, this Court is informed that the needful has been
done by the Registry and this Court finds that an additional
affidavit with two Annexures viz., notification of Presidential
Proclamation dated 13.02.2025 and notification of revocation of
President’s Rule being notification dated 04.02.2026 are before
this Court.
[3] This Court pointed out that vide Presidential Proclamation
dated 13.02.2025 made under Article 356, resorting to 356 1(c),
certain Articles of the Constitution have been suspended and this
Court pointed out that out of the suspended Articles, two Articles
are 163 and 167, captioned ‘ Council of Ministers to aid and
advise Governor ’ and ‘ Duties of Chief Minister as respects
, etc.’ respectively.
the furnishing of information to Governor
To be noted, this is in the light of Section 15(3) of ‘the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005)’ (‘RTI Act’ for the sake of
convenience and brevity)
[4] Faced with the above situation, Mr. Meihoubam Rakesh,
learned counsel on record for petitioner sought time to examine
the position and revert to this Court.
[5] Afore-referred request of learned counsel for petitioner is
acceded to.
[6] List under the same cause list caption i.e., ‘ADJOURNED
ADMISSION’ in the daily list on 07.04.2026.
[7] List on 07.04.2026.’

Page 5 of 7

[3] Before proceeding further, this Court deems it appropriate
to make it clear that as regards paragraph 3 of proceeding dated
01.04.2026, two Articles of the Constitution of India viz., Articles 163
and 167 captioned ‘Council of Ministers to aid and advise Governor’
and ‘Duties of Chief Minister as respects the furnishing of
information to Governor, etc.’ respectively also stood suspended vide
Article 356 (1)(c) when proclamations under Article 356 was made.
[4] Today, learned counsel on record, Mr. Meihoubam
Rakesh Singh submitted that he has examined the proposition that
popped-up and he is in complete agreement with the proposition that
when Articles 163 and 167 stand suspended, the exercise of powers by
the Governor-in-Council is appropriate. To be noted, this is in the
context of Section 15(3) of ‘the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of
2005)’ (‘RTI Act’ for the sake of convenience and brevity) which talks
about constitution of a Selection Committee with by Hon’ble Chief
Minister as Chairman, and Hon’ble leader of the opposition in the
Legislative Assembly and Hon’ble Cabinet Minister to be nominated by
Chief Minister as members for selection of State Information
Commissioner.
[5] Learned counsel on record, Mr. Meihoubam Rakesh has
made an endorsement in the case file in this regard and a scanned
reproduction of the same is as follows:
Page 6 of 7

[6] In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned WP is
disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.



JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
John Kom

P.S. I : Upload forthwith
P.S. II : All concerned will stand bound by web copy uploaded in High Court
website inter alia as the same is QR coded.

Page 7 of 7