Manipur High Court
Thokchom Sur Singh vs Union Of India on 12 August, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.14 16:36:29 +05'30'
Sl. Nos. 58-59
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 155 of 2025
Thokchom Sur Singh
Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India
Respondent
Clubbed with MC(WP(C)) No. 374 of 2025
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
ORDER
(K. Somashekar, C.J.)
12.08.2025
[1] Heard Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel for the petitioner;
Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned DSGI; Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Advocate General,
Manipur and also Mr.Tushar Mehta, the learned Solicitor General of India
who is appearing through video conferencing for the respondent/Union of
India.
[2] This writ petition has been initiated by the petitioner under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby seeking for issuance of a
writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ or order or
direction raising various grounds. Whereas, in this writ petition the
petitioner is challenging the Notification issued by the President of India
dated 13.02.2025 and imposition of Article 356 of the Constitution of India.
Page | 1
[3] This writ petition has been initiated by the petitioner under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondent i.e., Union of
India through the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of
India being arrayed as respondent.
[4] The petitioner is an elector enrolled in the Mayang-Imphal
Assembly Constituency, Manipur. He is an advocate by profession and a
socio-political activist/worker. Whereas, in paras 3 of this writ petition, it
reveals as elections to the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly, having a total
strength of 60 (sixty) Membership, was held in the month of
February/March, 2022 and it was duly constituted, following the
announcement of election result which is in detail stated in para 3 of the
writ petition.
[5] Whereas in para 5 of the writ petition it reveals as it is relevant
to state that the then Governor of Manipur, in exercise of the powers
conferred on her under Clause (1) of Article 174 of the Constitution of India
summoned successfully the 6th Session of the Twelfth Manipur Legislative
Assembly beginning with 31.07.2024 vide Notification No.3/1(4)/2022-
LA(Legn.) Imphal, the 13th July, 2024 and the same has been stated in detail
in para 5 of the writ petition.
[6] Whereas in para 10 the writ petition , it is stated that after the
resignation of N Biren Singh from the office/post of Chief Minister on
09.02.2025, the Governor of Manipur issued an Order, being, declaring his
previous directive to summon the Assembly 7th Session as “null and void”
which step is illegal and unconstitutional one committed not by the elected
Page | 2
Members of the House (Manipur Legislative Assembly). The Governor ofManipur himself while discharging his constitutional duties violated the
mandatory duties under A.174(1) of the Constitution of India. These all are
the grounds as raised in this writ petition as raised in this writ petition which
has been initiated by the petitioner against the respondent/Union of India.
[7] Whereas, in para 12 of this writ petition, it reveals as that the
President of India on receiving a report from the Governor of the State of
Manipur and after considering the report and other information issued by
Ministry of Home Affairs Notification G.S.R. 134(E) New Delhi, the 13 th
February, 2025 and consequential Order G.S.R. 135(E) New Delhi, the 13 th
February, 2025 [F. No. 11013/01/2025-CSR-1] thereby imposing President’s
Rule in the state, keeping the Assembly in suspended animation as the
President of India satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the
Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution of India. These are all the contentious
contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this matter.
However, various grounds have been urged by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in this writ petition and it is relevant to refer para 13 of the writ
petition which reads as thus :
“13. That the act of omissions and commissions of the
respondent is objected to on the following, inter alia,
grounds:
GROUNDS
i) Because the imposition of President’s Rule is
arbitrary and/or malafide;
Page | 3
ii) Because it is unconstitutional to impose President’s
Rule without giving the duly elected legislatures a
chance to form a new government;
iii) Because it is a case of misuse of Art.356 and the
potential erosion of democratic principles. While
originally designed to uphold the integrity and
unity of the nation, it is being deployed again in the
instant case for political undue advantage, as a tool
for centralizing power at the expense of federalism
which is a basic feature of the Constitution of India;
iv) Because it amounts to disruption of the normal
democratic process, sidelining elected
representatives of the State of Manipur and thus,
eroding the principles of representative
democracy;
v) Because the instant imposition of President’s Rule
does not have any valid grounds except possible
unauthorized grounds. In other words, there are no
grounds which can justify the imposition of the
impugned President’s Rule in the State of Manipur;
vi) Because it was not a case situation in which it could
be said the government of the State of Manipur can
not be carried out in conformity with the provisions
of the Constitution of India when Everything and
every aspect of the governance of the Government
of Manipur were perfectly being carried out as per
the constitutional requirements and seventh session
was fixed and scheduled to be held; So, how comePage | 4
all of a sudden constitutional breakdown did arose
in the Government of Manipur State;
vii) Because no case is made out to say that
constitutional machinery in the Government of
Manipur failed;
viii) Because from the date of Notification dated
24.01.2025 calling for holding 7th Session of the
Twelfth Manipur Legislative Assembly to meet at
11.00 AM on Monday, the 10th February 2025 in
the Assembly Hall, Imphal until it was declared as
‘null and void’ on 09.02.2025, there was no
constitutional breakdown or failure of governance
at the state level; no any political instability of the
like of a hung assembly, or a sudden breakdown of
law and order arose all of a sudden;
ix) Because in fact there were no circumstances
existing necessary for the issuance of the impugned
Presidential proclamation;
x) Because the recommendation for the President’s
Rule should be based on objective criteria, not
solely on the subjective opinion of the central
government. The objective criteria for arriving at
the subjective satisfaction of the President for the
impugned proclamation, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case in the State of
Manipur, is lacking. Though the satisfaction being
purely subjective of the President, there must be
objective criteria for arriving at the satisfaction
which is subjective;
Page | 5
xi) Because Article 365 of the Constitution of India
cannot be used/resorted to to resolve intraparty
issues;
xii) Because Governor cannot advise/recommend to the
President to impose Article 356 of the Constitution
of India until they have taken steps to form an
alternative government as required under the
constitutional scheme, democratic principles and
rule of law;
xiii) Because besides there are other good grounds for
filing the present writ petition.”
[8] However, in this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking (a) to
issue a rule-nisi in this behalf. That is the first relief; (b) to make the rule
absolute if and when the respondent fail to show cause or sufficient cause
in this regard; (c) to call for the file bearing no. F. No. 11013/01/2025-CSR-
1 lying with the office of the respondent and/or any other relevant file, in
case of need, so as to find out the absence/presence of relevant objective
criteria for the exercise of A.356(1) of the Constitution of India; (d) to quash
the Ministry of Home Affairs Notification G.S.R. 134(E) New Delhi, the 13 th
February, 2025 and consequential Order G.S.R. 135(E) New Delhi, the 13th
February, 2025 [F. No. 11013/01/2025-CSR-1] and further consequential
Order, if any.
[9] Whereas, the grounds which have already been given in the
writ petition and also taken various grounds by the learned counsel for the
Page | 6
petitioner seeking intervention of the orders rendered by the President of
India which is stated supra in detail.
[10] Whereas, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. N.
Mahendra further submitted that this writ petition is surviving for
consideration of the issues in between the petitioner and the respondent
even though imposition of the President’s Rule on 13th February, 2025 but
it would be expired on 13th August, 2025. However, keeping in view the
scope of eplex and influx in respect of the recording the period for 6 (six)
months and more so, keeping in view the scope of recurring course of action
and even though in this writ petition seeking for intervention of the
Notification issued by the President of India as keeping in view the Article
356 of the Constitution of India but keeping in view the submission made
by Mr. Tushar Mehta, the learned Solicitor General of India who is appearing
through video conferencing for the respondent/Union of India and even
though the learned Solicitor General of India in this matter emphatically
submitted that this writ petition does not survive for consideration and also
answering to the issues even though made a recurring cause of action would
be taken into consideration but the Parliament of the Government of India
had already been issued the Notification for continuity of the President’s
Rule for another 6 (six) months which would be effective from 13th August,
2025 and therefore, keeping in view the submission made by the learned
Solicitor General of India for the Union of India and also keeping view the
learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. N. Mahendra and even the learned
counsel Mr. N. Mahendra has taken us to the grounds which are stated
Page | 7
supra. Even, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the prayer column, it
is reflected as further consequential order, if any but the further
consequential order, if any, can’t be at this stage taken into consideration
to address the issues in between the petitioner and the respondent in
respect of the President’s Rule which was imposed as per the Notification
issued by the President of India and also further Notification would be issued
and would be effective from the 13th August, 2025.
[11] In the meanwhile, Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel for the
petitioner, in support of his contention, referred the citations in WP(C) No.
155 of 2025 in the case of Thokchom Sur Singh vs. Union of India through
the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Whereas
in this judgment, there shall be some addressing the scope and rule of law
and also discretion and the same has been addressed. Following are the
authorities relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition :
Authorities relied upon on behalf of the petitioner:
1. In constitutional matters it is advisable to decide only those points
which necessarily arise for determination on the facts of the
case. ………….Constitution of India is not an Act of Parliament, a
Constitution which establishes a Parliamentary system of
Government with a Cabinet. U. N. Rao v. Indira Gandhi (1971)
2 SCC 63 (5 Judges Bench) (Para 3, 4, 6 and 7) (para 133,
Samsher Singh);
2. The fundamental principle of English Constitutional Law that
Ministers must accept responsibility for every executive act is
incorporated in our Constitution. ……. The President as well as the
Governor is the constitutional or formal head. …… satisfaction of
the President required by the Constitution, ….. is the satisfaction
of the President or of the Governor in the constitutional sense under
the Cabinet system of Government. …….The Indian Constitution
envisages a Parliamentary and responsible form of Government at
the Centre and in the States and not a Presidential form of
Government. The powers of the Governor as the constitutional headPage | 8
are not different …; ….. Where the Governor has any discretion the
Governor acts on his own judgment. …. Unsavoury politics of
power … at the State level, with the additional factor that an area
of discretionary power is expressly left to him …. Samsher Singh
v State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2192: (1974) 2 SCC 831 (7
Judges Bench) (Para 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 47, 48, 88,
95, 97, 99, 127, 128, 130, 132, 133, 138, 139, 142, 149, 150
and 153)
3. “State Government” S.3 (60)(c) General Clauses Act, 1897 shall
mean, in a State, the Governor. (Para 132, Samsher Singh).
4. Other discretionary functions of Governor: In view of the
responsibility of the Governor to the President and of the fact that
the Governor’s decision as to whether he should act in his discretion
in any particular matter is final [Article 163(2)], it would be possible
for a Governor to act without ministerial advice in certain other
matters, according to the circumstances, even though they are not
specifically mentioned in the Constitution as discretionary functions.
Samsher Singh v State of Punjab, (Para 32) (Para 47, 88,
153)
5. Article 355 refers to three situations viz., (i) external
aggression, (ii) internal disturbance, and (iii) non-carrying
on of the Government of the States, in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution, Art.356 refers only to one
situation viz. the third one. ……….nor internal disturbance
can justify issuance of Proclamation under Art.356(1),
unless it disables or prevents carrying on of the Government
of the State in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution. S. R. Bommai v. UOI, (1994) 3 SCC 1 (Para
57). … The common thread running through all these
Articles in Part XVIII relating to emergency provisions is
that the said provisions can be invoked only when there is
an emergency and the emergency is of the nature described
therein and not of any other kind. …. (para 58 S. R.
Bommai) …. Conclusions (para 153 of S.R. Bommai)
6. The validity of the proclamation issued by the President u/A.356(1)
is judicially reviewable to the extent of examining whether it was
issued on the basis of any material at all or whether the material was
relevant or whether the proclamation was issued in the malafide
exercise of the power. When a prima facie case is made out in the
challenge to the proclamation, the burden is on the Union
Government to prove that the relevant material did in fact exist, such
material may be either the report of the Governor or other than the
report. (Para 153, S. R. Bommai); (para 112, Rameswar
Prasad Case, 2006) Rameshwar Prasad and others (VI) v
Page | 9
Union of India and Another (2006) 2 SCC 1 (Para 112, 148,
152, 153, 154, 227,
7. The manner in which the Governor acts. …… State of Gujarat and
Another v Justice R. A. Mehta (Retd.) and others, AIR 1974
SC 2192: (2013) 3 SCC 1 (Para 33 to 57, 106)
8. Article 355 refers to three situations viz., (i) external
aggression, (ii) internal disturbance, and (iii) non-carrying
on of the Government of the States, in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution, Art.356 refers only to one
situation viz. the third one. ……….nor internal disturbance
can justify issuance of Proclamation under Art.356(1),
unless it disables or prevents carrying on of the Government
of the State in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution. S. R. Bommai v. UOI, (1994) 3 SCC 1 (Para
57). … The common thread running through all these
Articles in Part XVIII relating to emergency provisions is
that the said provisions can be invoked only when there is
an emergency and the emergency is of the nature described
therein and not of any other kind. …. (para 58 S. R. Bommai)
Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha and Another v State of Gujarat, (2020) 10
SCC 459 (para 12 to 19)
9. The functions Governor exercises in his discretion are the ones which
expressly require the Governor to act in his discretion. The only other
functions which he can discharge in his discretion are “where such
intent emerges from a legitimate interpretation of the provision
concerned, and the same cannot be construed otherwise” or “where
the Supreme Court has declared that the Governor should exercise
the particular function at his own and without any aid or advice
because of the impermissibility of the other alternative, by reason of
conflict of interest.”
….. The exercise of any discretion by the Governor is
subject to judicial Review. …… the summoning of Assembly in
A.174(1), i.e., the Governor must act on the aid and advice of his
Council of Ministers. Summoning of any House without such advice
is unconstitutional.; Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v Dy.
Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, (2016) 8
SCC 1 (Para . 186;
10. [An existing legislature meets at least every six months] Article 174
of the Constitution of India deals with a live legislature. The purpose
and object of the said provision is to ensure that an existing
legislature meets at least every six months, as it is only an existing
legislature meets at least every six months, as it is only an existing
legislature that can be prorogued or dissolved. Thus Art.174 which
is a complete code in itself deals only with a live
legislature. ………… As far as frequency of meetings of the
Page | 10
Assembly is concerned, the six months’ rule is mandatory, …. In the
matter of Special Reference No.1 of 2002 (Gujarat Assembly
Election Matter) (2002) 8 SCC 237 (para 14 to 18, 42, 47, 51,
84).
11. Application of Article 356 on the infraction of the provisions of Article
174. (It was left open) It was not required to be gone into (para 84,
In re Spl. Ref. no. 1 of 2002).
12. The Governor was bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers
in the matter of prorogation. K. A. Mathialagan V Governor, AIR
1973 Mad 198.
13. Art.85 (compare A.174): The President, under this Article, exercises
three functions, namely, summoning, prorogation and dissolution, in
relation to the Houses of Parliament. Summoning….., Prorogation: A
prorogation ends a session. Prorogation is the act of terminating a
parliamentary session. It differs from adjournment because
adjournment does not end the session but suspends the sittings of
the House. The power to adjourn the House belongs to the House,
but prorogation of the session can be effected by the President alone.
Ramdas Athawale(5) v UOI, (2010) 4 SCC 1 : AIR 2010 SC
1310.
14. There is no mention of any care-taker Government as such, in our
constitution or in the constitutional law, though Sir Ivor Jennings has
described in his book – Cabinet Governmaent Third Ed. P. 85 the
ministry that was formed by Mr. Churchill ………..as care-taker
Government Madan Murari Verma v Choudhuri Charan Singh
and another, AIR 1980 Cal 95 (Para 15, 20);
15. Parliamentary democracy generally envisages i) representation of the
people; ii) responsible government, iii) accountability of the Council
of Ministers to the Legislature. …….. S. R. Chaudhuri Vs. State of
Punjab & Ors, AIR 2001 SC 2707 (3 Judges Bench) (Para 21,
38 part, 39 – 41,
16. [This Hon’ble High Court is under the constitutional obligation for the
sake of democracy and political justice, (preamble) to direct for
calling a Spl. Session of the State Assembly] The constitutional
obligation to innovate the method for ….One day Spl. Session …
Jagdambika Pal v UOI (1999) 9 SCC 95 (page 96, paras 1-2)
17. Calling for Spl. Session for a day by keeping in abeyance the
impugned order for a day. UOI v Harish Chandra Singh Rawat
& Anr, (2016) 16 SCC 744 (Para 16, 26, 28 to 31)
Page | 11
[12] However, keeping in view the ratio of reliances which have
been facilitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it can’t be an
assistance in support of his contention in this writ petition. Even on this
premise also, this writ petition does not survive for consideration and even
on the premise of maintainability as there shall be eflex and influx of the
enforcement of the President’s Rule in the State of Manipur and accordingly,
this writ petition is hereby disposed of.
[13] Therefore, keeping in view the scope of Article 356 of the
Constitution of India are concerned, it is said that this writ petition does not
survive for consideration. Therefore, the writ petition is hereby disposed of
as has become infructuous.
[14] Consequent upon disposal of this writ petition, the connected
miscellaneous application in MC(WP(C)) No. 374 of 2025 also stands
disposed of.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sushil
Page | 12