Facts
The Petitioner, a journalist, filed a Writ of Quo Warranto challenging the appointment of Respondent No. 4 as the State Information Commissioner of the Manipur Information Commission
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3At the time of the appointment (November 14, 2025), President’s Rule was in effect in Manipur
Source reference: p. 4, para. 5Information obtained via an RTI query revealed that the Selection Committee prescribed by law was not constituted due to President’s Rule; instead, the process was handled via the "Governor-in-Council"
Source reference: p. 4, para. 4Issues
1. Whether the appointment of a State Information Commissioner by the Governor-in-Council during President’s Rule is legally valid when the statutory Selection Committee (comprising the Chief Minister, Leader of Opposition, and a Cabinet Minister) cannot be formed
Source reference: p. 4-5Law Applied
Section 15(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which mandates that the State Information Commissioner be appointed on the recommendation of a Committee headed by the Chief Minister
Source reference: p. 4, para. 3Article 356 of the Constitution of India regarding the Proclamation of President’s Rule, specifically Article 356(1)(c), which allows for the suspension of certain constitutional provisions
Source reference: p. 5, para. 3Articles 163 (Council of Ministers to aid and advise Governor) and 167 (Duties of Chief Minister) stand suspended [during Proclamation]
Source reference: p. 6, para. 3Reasoning
The Court noted that the Presidential Proclamation dated 13.02.2025 explicitly suspended Articles 163 and 167 of the Constitution
Source reference: p. 5-6Because these Articles were suspended, the office of the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers—who are statutory requirements for the Selection Committee under Section 15(3) of the RTI Act—were not functional in their constitutional capacity
Source reference: p. 6, para. 3-4the Court reasoned that the exercise of powers by the "Governor-in-Council" was the appropriate legal substitute during the subsistence of the Proclamation
Source reference: p. 6, para. 4Holding
the appointment of Respondent No. 4 was validly conducted by the Governor-in-Council in light of the suspension of Articles 163 and 167 under President’s Rule
the Writ Petition was disposed of as closed. No orders as to costs were made
Source reference: p. 7, para. 6Original Court PDF
Aribam Dhananjoy SharmavsState of Manipur and 3 Others
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in