Manipur HC Gives Chief Secretary 6 Weeks to Decide Hill Groups’ Representations on Article 275 Grant Allocation

The petitioners challenged the State’s allocation and implementation of Union grants-in-aid under Article 275(1) of the Constitution, alleging that the applicable Guidelines had not been followed and that equitable, district-wise distribution was lacking.

In an earlier PIL, the Court had directed the relevant State authority to consider five representations and issue a speaking order.

The State issued proceedings dated 31 August 2026, which the petitioners considered inadequate on the Guidelines and district-wise allocation.

The petitioners then submitted three further representations, dated 9 September and 14 October 2026.

At the hearing, they narrowed the requested relief to disposal of those representations; the respondents accepted notice and waived affidavits-in-opposition.

Article 275(1) of the Constitution, which concerns grants-in-aid to States, formed the subject matter of the PIL.

Its operative direction required the competent State authority to consider the representations on their own merits and in accordance with law, and to communicate its decision through a speaking order.

No precedent was relied upon.

The petitioners confined the PIL to obtaining a decision on the three later representations, rather than seeking an immediate adjudication of the allocation dispute.

In light of that narrowed scope, the Court directed the Chief Secretary to consider the representations and issue one common speaking order addressing their details.

The Court left the underlying objections—including those concerning the State’s 31 August 2026 proceedings—open for a possible challenge after that decision.

The order was to be served on the petitioners’ counsel within five working days of disposal.

The petitioners and other persons concerned were left free to challenge the speaking order; the related miscellaneous case was also disposed of, with no order as to costs.