Governor-in-Council may exercise statutory appointment powers under the RTI Act while Articles 163 and 167 remain suspended.

In brief

The question

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

The court held

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

It also directed

the Writ Petition was disposed of as closed. No orders as to costs were made

01Facts

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

p. 2 · ¶ 3

At the time of the appointment (November 14, 2025), President’s Rule was in effect in Manipur

p. 4 · ¶ 5

Information 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"

p. 4 · ¶ 4

02Issues

i.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

pp. 4-5

03Law 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

p. 4 · ¶ 3

Article 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

p. 5 · ¶ 3

Articles 163 (Council of Ministers to aid and advise Governor) and 167 (Duties of Chief Minister) stand suspended [during Proclamation]

p. 6 · ¶ 3

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 15

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the Presidential Proclamation dated 13.02.2025 explicitly suspended Articles 163 and 167 of the Constitution

pp. 5-6

Because 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

p. 6 · ¶ 3-4

the Court reasoned that the exercise of powers by the "Governor-in-Council" was the appropriate legal substitute during the subsistence of the Proclamation

p. 6 · ¶ 4

05Holding

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

p. 6 · ¶ 4

the Writ Petition was disposed of as closed. No orders as to costs were made

p. 7 · ¶ 6

LawLens.Manipur High Court

Original Court PDF