ca REPORTABLE Sl. No. 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL WP(C)No.173 of 2026 Shri Aribam Dhananjoy Sharma, aged about 48 years, S/o Aribam Priyogopal Sharma, a resident of Thangmeiband Lourung Purel Leikai, P.O. Lamphel, P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001. ……Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur, New Civil Secretariat, South Block, Mantripukhri, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Secretariat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795002. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personal & Administrative Reforms (Administrative Reforms Division), Government of Manipur, New Civil Secretariat, North Block, Mantripukhri, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Secretariat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795002. 3. The Principal Secretary (Law), department of law and Legislative Affairs, Government of Manipur, New Civil Secretariat, North Block, Mantripukhri, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Secretariat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795002. 4. Smt. Nungshitombi Athokpam, aged about 60 years, W/O Sanjenbam Jogendro Singh, a resident of Uripok Bachaspati Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, and presently functioning as State Information Commissioner, Manipur Information Commission, Imphal. ……Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA For petitioner Mr. Meihoubam Rakesh Singh, Advocate Date of Judgment & Order 06.05.2026 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) (M. Sundar, CJ) [1] This order will now give a closure to the captioned ‘Writ Petition’ (‘WP’ for the sake of convenience and brevity). [2] Though it is a closure simplicitor, an interesting proposition/principle of law stands propounded and therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to extract and reproduce proceedings/orders made in three earlier listings viz., the listings on 09.03.2026, 30.03.2026 and 01.04.2026. Proceedings/orders made in these three listings read as follows: ‘09.03.2026 Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listings on 26.02.2026 which reads as follows : ‘26.02.2026. [1] Mr. Meihoubam Rakesh Singh, learned counsel on record for the writ petitioner is before this Court. [2] At the outset, it is seen that a unique situation has arisen. In the captioned ‘Writ Petition’ (‘WP’ for the sake of brevity), the writ petitioner has primarily sought issue of a writ of Quo Warranto qua appointment of R4 (Smt. Nungshitombi Athokpam, aged about 60 years, W/O Sanjenbam Jogendro Singh, a resident of Uripok Bachaspati Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur) as State Information Commissioner, Manipur Information Commission. [3] Learned counsel submits that the writ petitioner who is a journalist is espousing a public cause, writ petitioner is a public-spirited person and he has filed the captioned WP but the writ petition was filed resorting to Category Code No. ‘10043’ vide Appendix – 22 of ‘High Court of Manipur Rules, 2019’ (‘said Rules’). Code ‘10043’ is for matters pertaining to ‘Selection and appointment’. Learned counsel for WP petitioner very fairly, adverting inter-alia to paragraph 1 of the WP pleadings as well as the pre-WP representation sent by writ petitioner being a representation dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure-A/10) submitted that though the writ petitioner is espousing a public cause, resorting to Public Interest Litigation Code i.e., Code No. ‘10194’ may become a hurdle as the captioned matter can be construed as a service matter and the issue of service matter in a PIL may arise. We place on record our appreciation for the fair stand taken by the learned counsel for WP petitioner. [4] A careful perusal of the WP pleading, the pre-writ petition representation being representation dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure-A/10), the prayer in WP and the nature of the legal grind qua captioned WP bring to light that this is a case of importance and complexity. Therefore, as this Bench is presided by the Chief Justice who is the master of roster, exercising powers under Rule 3(1) and proviso thereat of said Rules, the captioned matter is directed to be listed before Division Bench (DB) presided by Chief Justice. To be noted, Rule 3(1) and the proviso thereat of said Rules makes it clear that listing before Single Bench has an exception and the exception is where the Chief Justice ‘otherwise directs’. [5] In the normal circumstances, such an order would not have been made on the judicial side but as the writ petition has been numbered and listed before this DB and as the question has been brought to the notice of this court it has become necessary to make this part of instant judicial order today more so as this DB presided by Chief Justice has the benefit of hearing learned counsel on record for the writ petitioner though such orders in the normal course are made by Chief Justice on the administrative side. [6] It is made clear that the captioned matter is being taken up by DB only owing to the importance and by exercise of powers of Chief Justice under Rule 3 (1) and proviso thereat without expressing any opinion one way or the other as to whether it should be treated as a PIL or not. This question is left open and will be decided as the matter progresses. [7] List under the same cause list caption ‘MOTION’ on Monday week i.e., 09.03.2026 (we are saying Monday week owing to the intervening Yaoshang holidays). [8] List on 09.03.2026.’ [2] Today, Mr. Meihoubam Rakesh Singh, learned counsel on record for the writ petitioner is before this Court. [3] Learned counsel submits that appointment of respondent No. 4 as State Information Commissioner of Manipur Information Commission is hit by Section 15(3) of ‘the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005)’ [‘RTI Act’ for the sake of brevity] which says that State Information Commissioners shall be appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of a committee consisting of Hon’ble Chief Minister (who shall be Chairman of the Committee), Hon’ble Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly and a Hon’ble Cabinet Minister to be nominated by Chief Minister. [4] Adverting to a reply dated 02.01.2026 in response to writ petitioner’s query/request for information under RTI Act, learned counsel submits that the response of Public Information Officer under the RTI Act says that due to President’s Rule, Committee under Section 15(3) of RTI Act was not constituted and that the process was handled via Governor in Council. The relevant query and the answer as found in the tabulation is as follows : Para Query Reply 3 Please provide : (a) the names and designations of all members of the Selection Committee; (b) the dates on which the Committee met; and (c) copies of any dissent notes or objections recorded by any member. The Selection Committee under Section 15(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, consists of the Chief Minister (Chairperson), the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly, and a Cabinet Minister nominated by the Chief Minister. However, due to President’s Rule, it was not constituted; the process was handled via Governor in Council. [5] On 14.11.2025, when respondent No. 4 was appointed as State Information Commissioner, President’s Rule was in vogue in Manipur. In this view of the matter, this Court drew the attention of learned counsel to ‘assumption of functions’ qua Articles 356 and 357 of the Constitution of India. [6] Faced to the above situation, learned counsel sought time to produce a copy of the afore-referred Presidential proclamation and any other document/s in this regard which may be of relevance to the legal drill at hand. Page 5 of 7 [7] Request of learned counsel for writ petitioner acceded to. [8] List under the caption ‘ADJOUNRED ADMISSION’ on 30.03.2026. ‘30.03.2026 [1] Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 09.03.2026. [2] Today, Mr. M. Rakesh Singh, learned counsel for writ petitioner, adverting to afore-referred earlier proceedings, submits that he has filed a copy of the Presidential Proclamation and revocation of the same on 26.03.2026 vide filing No. 1115 but the same has not been placed before this Court today. Let the Registry do the needful by next listing. [3] List day after tomorrow i.e., 01.04.2026 under the same cause list caption i.e., ‘ADJOURNED ADMISSION’. [4] List on 01.04.2026’ ‘01.04.2026 [1] Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listings. [2] Adverting to earlier proceedings made in previous listing on 30.03.2026, this Court is informed that the needful has been done by the Registry and this Court finds that an additional affidavit with two Annexures viz., notification of Presidential Proclamation dated 13.02.2025 and notification of revocation of President’s Rule being notification dated 04.02.2026 are before this Court. [3] This Court pointed out that vide Presidential Proclamation dated 13.02.2025 made under Article 356, resorting to 356 1(c), certain Articles of the Constitution have been suspended and this Court pointed out that out of the suspended Articles, two Articles are 163 and 167, captioned ‘Council of Ministers to aid and advise Governor’ and ‘Duties of Chief Minister as respects the furnishing of information to Governor, etc.’ respectively. To be noted, this is in the light of Section 15(3) of ‘the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005)’ (‘RTI Act’ for the sake of convenience and brevity) [4] Faced with the above situation, Mr. Meihoubam Rakesh, learned counsel on record for petitioner sought time to examine the position and revert to this Court. [5] Afore-referred request of learned counsel for petitioner is acceded to. [6] List under the same cause list caption i.e., ‘ADJOURNED ADMISSION’ in the daily list on 07.04.2026. [7] List on 07.04.2026.’ [3] Before proceeding further, this Court deems it appropriate to make it clear that as regards paragraph 3 of proceeding dated 01.04.2026, two Articles of the Constitution of India viz., Articles 163 and 167 captioned ‘Council of Ministers to aid and advise Governor’ and ‘Duties of Chief Minister as respects the furnishing of information to Governor, etc.’ respectively also stood suspended vide Article 356 (1)(c) when proclamations under Article 356 was made. [4] Today, learned counsel on record, Mr. Meihoubam Rakesh Singh submitted that he has examined the proposition that popped-up and he is in complete agreement with the proposition that when Articles 163 and 167 stand suspended, the exercise of powers by the Governor-in-Council is appropriate. To be noted, this is in the context of Section 15(3) of ‘the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005)’ (‘RTI Act’ for the sake of convenience and brevity) which talks about constitution of a Selection Committee with by Hon’ble Chief Minister as Chairman, and Hon’ble leader of the opposition in the Legislative Assembly and Hon’ble Cabinet Minister to be nominated by Chief Minister as members for selection of State Information Commissioner. [5] Learned counsel on record, Mr. Meihoubam Rakesh has made an endorsement in the case file in this regard and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows: [6] In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned WP is disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE FR/NFR John Kom P.S. I : Upload forthwith P.S. II : All concerned will stand bound by web copy uploaded in High Court website inter alia as the same is QR coded.