Court permits appointment of representative Administrative Committees for Zila Parishads under residency of Section 109.

The 5th Manipur Panchayat term (elected in 2017) expired in 2022

Due to the state's failure to conduct elections for the 6th Panchayat, the Single Judge initially allowed outgoing members to continue functioning

This was challenged by the State, leading to a Division Bench judgment on 29.08.2025 (“Order under Review”), which set aside the extension of elected members, held that the Panchayat tenure cannot exceed 5 years under Article 243E, and directed elections within 6 months

The State subsequently moved this review, citing administrative difficulties, the imposition of President's Rule (w.e.f. 13.02.2025), and a 2023 amendment to the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act transitioning the system from a 2-tier to a 3-tier structure

Article 243E of the Constitution of India, which mandates a 5-year duration for Panchayats

Section 20 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which mirrors this constitutional limit

Section 22 regarding the appointment of Administrative Committees for Gram Panchayats (limited to 6 months)

Section 92 concerning Administrators for Zila Parishads

The "Removal of Difficulties" clause under Section 109 to harmonize representative governance with statutory gaps

The principle of Expressio unius est exclusio alterius as argued by respondents to interpret statutory mandates

The precedent in Rattanindia Power Limited v. MSEDCL, regarding the finality of order parts not challenged by a party

The court noted that while Article 243E is mandatory, the 2023 amendment to the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act (introducing Sections 110-139) fundamentally altered the Panchayat structure to a 3-tier system, necessitating a recalibration of the election timeline

The Court recognized the State Election Commission's undertaking to conduct elections by 16.10.2026 as a reasonable adjustment

Regarding Zila Parishads, the Court found that Section 92(1) strictly applied to stays of election or mass resignations, which did not cover "expiry of tenure"; therefore, Section 109 was the appropriate vehicle to prevent an administrative vacuum

By reading Section 109 in harmony with the spirit of Section 22, the Court reasoned that a multi-member "Administrative Committee" was more representative and legally sound than a single "Administrator" for Zila Parishads, provided the tenure did not exceed 6 months

(ii) permit the State to appoint Administrative Committees for Zila Parishads (not exceeding 6 months) under Section 109 read with Section 92

The Court held that the legality of "multiple successive appointments" was left open for future adjudication

For the third-party petitioners, the Court directed the State to release all legitimate pending honorariums and bills for works already executed during their prior tenure. All miscellaneous applications were closed