Manipur High Court
Keisham Meghachandra Ssingh vs Union Of India & 3 Ors on 17 February, 2026
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Digitally signed by
KHOIROM KHOIROM
BIPINCHAN BIPINCHANDRA
SINGH
DRA SINGH Date: 2026.02.18
08:07:03 +05'30' Item No. 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
W.P.(C) No. 53 of 2026
Keisham Meghachandra Ssingh
... Petitioner
- Versus -
Union of India & 3 Ors.
... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
O R D E R
[M. Sundar, CJ]
17.02.2026
[1] Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier
proceedings made in the listings on 05.02.2026 and 13.02.2026 which read
as follows:
‘Order dated 05.02.2026
[1] Captioned the matter is listed under the cause list of caption
‘Motion’.
[2] Mr. N. Bupenda, learned counsel for writ petitioner
submitted that Hon’ble Governor of Manipur had on 24.01.2025
summoned the 7th Session of 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly at
11:00 a.m. on 10.02.2025. Thereafter, the then Hon’ble Chief
Minister resigned on 09.02.2025, the same was accepted by the
Hon’ble Governor of Manipur and on the same day (09.02.2025)
another order declaring the 24.01.2025 order summoning the 7th
Session of 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly as null and void was
made. Learned counsel submitted that this is the infraction of
Article 174(1) of the Constitution of India and therefore it warrants
interference vide a Article 226 legal drill.
[3] This Court, at the threshold requested the learned counsel
to address the Court on the question of subjecting such an order
and other issues which have been raised in the captioned writ
petition to judicial review i.e. orders of Hon’ble Governor in a Article
226 legal drill.
Page 1|4
[4] To be noted, learned Solicitor General of India, Mr. Tushar
Mehta was before this Court on the VC (video conferencing)
platform and learned Solicitor General volunteered to assist this
Court on the afore-referred threshold issue in a physical Court
hearing.
[5] Let the matter stand over to 11.02.2026 (Wednesday).
[6] This Court makes it clear that at this juncture, we have not
issued notice and in the next listing i.e. on 11.02.2026, the afore-
referred threshold question pertaining to judicial review qua orders
of Hon’ble Governor/issues that have been raised in the captioned
writ petition will be examined first and subject to the decision qua
this threshold question the merits of matter will be examined if need
arises.
[7] List in the daily cause list under the caption ‘Adjourned
Admission’ on 11.02.2026.
[8] List on 11.02.2026.' 'Order dated 13.02.2025
‘[1] Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier
proceedings made in the listing on 05.02.2026.
[2] Today, Mr. Bupenda, learned counsel on record for writ
petitioner is before us (physical Court).
[3] Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India is
before this Court on the VC (video conferencing) platform and his
instructing counsel, Mr. O. Ratankumar is present in the physical
Court.
[4] Mr. Bupenda, learned counsel for the writ petitioner
adverting to 05.02.2026 proceedings started making submissions
inter alia on justiciability qua order of Hon’ble Governor in a Article
226 drill more particularly, the order dated 09.02.2025 (Annexure
– A/36).
[5] In captioned writ petition, there are 7 (seven) limbs of
prayers. The last limb is usual residuary prayer. As regards 6 (six)
limbs of prayers, learned counsel very fairly submitted that he is
not pressing prayer for dissolution of the Assembly which is limb –
4 of the prayers or in other words, sub-paragraph No. (iv) of the
prayer paragraph. (To be noted, prayer paragraph is the paragraph
after paragraph No. 65.) This submission is recorded.
[6] It was also submitted that he is not assailing Article 356
proclamation which was made on 13.02.2025 and thereafter on
07.08.2025. It was further submitted that consequence qua
infraction of Article 174 (1) has not been prescribed in the
Page 2|4
Constitution and writ petitioner is not specifically asking for position
ante i.e. ante 09.02.2025.
[7] As this Division Bench has to break for Single Sitting of both
Members of Division Bench (Chief Justice and Justice A. Guneshwar
Sharma), let this matter stand over to 17.02.2026 (Tuesday) for
continuation.
[8] List under the same cause list caption i.e., ‘ADJOURNED
ADMISSION’ on 17.02.2026 (Tuesday).’
[2] In the listing today, Mr. Bupenda, learned counsel on record
for writ petitioner is before us (Physical Court).
[3] Mr. Bupenda, learned counsel for writ petitioner reiterated his
earlier submissions.
[4] This Court notices that Article 174 of the Constitution of India
has its origin qua Article 153 of the draft Constitution which is akin to Article
69 as regards the Constituent Assembly debates and traceable to Section
62 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
[5] In the light of narrative thus far, issue notice to the
respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 subject to justiciability issue i.e. justiciability of
order of Hon’ble Governor in a Article 226 legal drill.
[6] As regards R-1, learned Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta
who is assisting this Court on the VC platform submits that Cabinet
Secretary is completely alien to the entire issue before this Court and in
another case, notice to Cabinet Secretary was recalled by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the light of Rules of business on an application filed by the Union
of India. Learned Solicitor submitted that he would submit orders of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in this regard and according to learned Solicitor these orders
Page 3|4
would be relevant to case at hand as regards writ petitioner adding R-1 in
the array of respondent. To be noted, learned counsel for writ petitioner
requests for time to make contra submissions in this regard. In this view of
the matter, we have issued notice to the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 and the
question of whether R-1 is necessary in the array of respondents would be
considered in the next listing.
[7] As regards notice to R-4, as already alluded to supra, it is
made clear that the notice is subject to outcome of justiciability issue.
Outcome of justiciability issue will obviously decide the question of whether
R-4 should continue to be in the array of respondents.
[8] Learned Solicitor General submitted that captioned matter is
now academic as the 7thSession of 12th Assembly has since been convened
and has met on 05.02.2026. It is further submitted that the captioned
matter has already become infructuous inter-alia owing to this position and
owing to writ petitioner having attended/participated in the 7th Session on
05.02.2026. It is made clear that it is open to the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to
raise this point also in the affidavit-in-opposition.
[9] Affidavits-in-opposition, if any, shall be filed in the
interregnum.
[10] List on 13.03.2026 after Yaoshang Holidays (Holi).
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Bipin
Page 4|4
