Manipur HC Keeps Census On Hold Until April 30, 2027, As Registrar General Must Decide Seven Representations

The Kangleipak Students’ Association and the International Peace and Social Advancement filed a PIL, and Shanta Singh Nahakpam filed a writ petition, concerning the Census of India, 2027 in Manipur and related representations.

The proceedings challenged, among other matters, a Central Government notification dated 7 January 2026 and a State Government notification dated 22 March 2026.

On 31 August 2026, the Court recorded the Central Government’s undertaking to defer the census house-listing operations in Manipur and the State Government’s undertaking not to commence them; the operations were kept in abeyance pending further orders.

While the cases were pending, two further Central Government notifications and one State Government notification placed the census exercise in Manipur on hold.

At the hearing on 4 November 2026, the parties agreed that seven representations before the Court should be considered while the census remained in abeyance.

The Court also considered an unopposed application to place additional documents on the PIL record.

The judgment refers to the Census Act, 1948, including Sections 3 and 17A, and the Census Rules, 1990, including Rules 6A, 6D and 8(iii), in identifying the legal basis cited for the impugned census notifications.

The operative directions require the Registrar General and Census Commissioner to consider the identified representations on their merits and in accordance with law, and to give reasons in a common speaking order.

The Court noted the parties’ consensus that consideration of the representations would serve the public interest while the census remained on hold.

It therefore directed the Registrar General and Census Commissioner to decide the seven representations, together with any further or additional representations received by 25 November 2026, by one common speaking order, after public consultation if considered necessary; if consultation was not held, reasons were to be given.

The Court did not decide the underlying substantive concerns raised in the representations, leaving their consideration to the designated authority.

The three specified notifications were to remain in force, without rollback or modification, and the census exercise in Manipur was to remain in abeyance until that date.

After the speaking order, the census was to remain in abeyance for a further four weeks to permit an aggrieved or dissatisfied person to approach the Court; the order was to be uploaded on the relevant official websites.

The PIL and writ petition were disposed of with those directions, and the related miscellaneous cases were disposed of; the application to accept additional documents was allowed.

No order as to costs was made.