Manipur High Court
Rarry Mangsatabam vs Vrs on 25 May, 2026
Digitally
LAIREN signed by
MAYUM LAIRENMAYU
M INDRAJEET
INDRAJ SINGH Item No. 1
Date: IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
EET 2026.05.26
AT IMPHAL
SINGH 18:09:27
+05'30'
CONT.CAS(C) No. 26 of 2026
Rarry Mangsatabam
Petitioner/s
Vrs.
M. Basanta Kumar Sharma & 8 ors.
Respondent/s
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
(ORDER)
25.05.2026
[1] In the captioned contempt case, Mr. Rarry Mangsatabam, who is the
contempt petitioner appearing party-in-person is before this Court (physical Court).
[2] Contempt petitioner appearing party-in-person is a learned Member
of this Bar, he is a designated Senior Advocate and he is a elected member of ‘Bar
Council of Manipur’ (‘BCM’ for the sake of brevity).
[3] Learned contempt petitioner submits that he has filed WP(C) No. 802
of 2025 on 06.10.2025 inter alia assailing resolutions and notices of BCM which
were made pursuant to/ acting on a complaint dated 22.07.2025 from one ‘Mr.
Thongbam Mahipal Singh’ (‘complainant’ for the sake of brevity).
[4] Contempt petitioner submitted that his afore-referred writ petition was
entertained by this Court, notice was issued and an interim order was made on
29.10.2025. Contempt petitioner draws the attention of this Court to this 29.10.2025
order made in WP(Writ Petition) and MC(Miscellaneous Case) thereat and the same
is as follows:
Page 1 of 6
‘29.10.2025
[1] Writ petitioner in the captioned ‘main writ petition’ (‘WP’ for
the sake of brevity) is a member of High Court Bar Association of
Manipur and is a designated senior advocate. Writ petitioner is also an
elected member of Bar Council of Manipur. Writ petitioner is appearing
party-in-person.
[2] Epicenter of the captioned WP is a ‘complaint dated
22.07.2025’ (‘said complaint’ for convenience) from one Mr. Thongbam
Mahipal Singh of Imphal who is respondent No. 2 in the captioned WP
and captioned MC thereat.
[3] In and vide said complaint, respondent No. 2 alleged
unethical professional conduct qua writ petitioner primarily on the
ground that writ petitioner who was a former Additional Advocate
General of State of Manipur and presently a State Special Counsel is
appearing in cases in the High Court of Manipur on behalf of Manipur
Lokayukta, in cases which are filed against the State Government. The
afore-referred said complaint was received by respondent No. 1 (Bar
Council of Manipur) which shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘BCM’ for
convenience, on the next date, i.e., 23.07.2025. Acting on the said
complaint, BCM made a ‘resolution dated 26.07.2025’ (‘1st impugned
resolution) inter alia resolving to show cause writ petitioner, pursuant to
which a ‘Show Cause Notice dated 06.08.2025’ (‘1st impugned SCN’ for
convenience) was issued, this was followed by another resolution of BCM
being ‘Resolution dated 30.08.2025’ (‘2nd impugned resolution’ for
convenience) inter alia resolving to request writ petitioner to not to
appear as counsel for Lokayukta (to be noted, this is Agenda No. 3 in
this resolution). Pursuant to the second impugned resolution, another
‘Show Cause Notice dated 23.09.2025’ (2nd impugned SCN for
convenience) was issued inter alia calling upon writ petitioner to rethink
qua appearing for Lokayukta and also calling upon writ petitioner to
choose between resigning from membership of Bar Council of Manipur
or resigning from the office of Senior Advisor of the High Court Bar
Association, Manipur.
Page 2 of 6
[4] Assailing the afore-referred complaint, 1st and 2nd impugned
Resolutions of BCM, 1st and 2nd impugned SCNs, captioned WP has been
filed.
[5] In his campaign against the afore-referred complaint,
resolutions, SCNs, writ petitioner made the following points:
(a) The 1st and 2nd impugned Show Cause Notices are not traceable
to any power either under ‘the Advocates Act, 1961‘ (‘said Act’ for
convenience) or the Rules made thereunder being ‘the Bar Council
of India Rules, 1975’ (‘said Rule’ for convenience).
(b) Respondent No. 2 (complainant) does not have locus as he has
neither appeared for counsel representing him nor is there any
other form of privity between the complainant and writ petitioner.
(c) The language in which the impugned 1st and 2nd SCNs are
couched, come across as SCNs which have pre-judged the issue
as it call upon writ petitioner to make an option rather than
explain/show cause.
(d) The Membership of respondent No. 1 (BCM) is by way of election,
writ petitioner is an electee and an elected member of the Bar
Council cannot be dislodged by disciplinary proceedings inter alia
under Section 35 of the said Act.
[6] Prima facie case for issue of notice made out. [7] Issue notice [8] Ms. S. Nikita, learned counsel, accepts notice for respondent
No. 1 and Mr. S. Biswajit, learned senior counsel, appears on her behalf.
As regards respondent No. 2, let notice returnable in four weeks, i.e.,
returnable by 26.11.2025 be issued. Private notice permitted.
[9] Mr. S. Biswajit, learned senior counsel, on instructions
submitted that learned counsel on record requires time to ascertain the
provision of law to which the SCN is traceable. Learned counsel for
respondent No. 1 requested time to get instructions on other aspects of
the matter also.
[10] Be that as it may, as regards captioned MC, from
the trajectory the matter has taken, it is clear that if the proceedings
continue, it can lead to irreversible legal injury. This tilts balance of
Page 3 of 6
convenience in favour of grant of interim order sought for. Interim order
sought for in the captioned MC is as follows:
‘PRAYER
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to pass an Order staying all further proceeding before the
Respondent no.1/Bar Council of Manipur arising out of the Complaint
dated 22.07.2025 filed by the Respondent no.2 against the Petitioner-
Advocate, including all consequential Impugned Misc. Resolution no.2
dated 26.07.2025, Impugned Resolution no.1 and 3 dated 30.08.2025,
Impugned Notice dated 23.09.2025 of the Respondent no.1/ Bar Council
of Manipur, during the pendency of the present writ proceeding, for
meeting the ends of justice.’
[11] As prima facie case has been made out balance of
convenience is in favour of grant of interim order and as there is
possibility of irreparable legal injury, there shall be an order of interim
stay as prayed for till the next listing which will be on 26.11.2025.
[12] In the interregnum, it is open to respondent No. 1
to file an affidavit-in-opposition and bring it on board, if so advised and
if so desired.
[13] List on 26.11.2025.' [5] Contempt petitioner, adverting to paragraph Nos. 10 & 11 of afore-
referred order submits that an interim order was granted but when the interim order
was operating, in breach of the interim order, BCM in its meeting on 22.11.2025
and made resolutions inter alia pertaining to the resolutions which are under
challenge in WP as well as with regard to further action pertaining to complaint
dated 22.07.2025 from Mr. Thongbam Mahipal Singh which has been described in
29.10.2025 order as epicenter. Contempt petitioner, adverting to a affidavits of BCM
being affidavits dated 13.02.2026 & 30.03.2026 in WP, submitted that BCM has
filed affidavits in this Court clearly confirming the resolution made on 22.11.2025
inter alia regarding further action qua 22.07.2025 complaint (epicenter) and
therefore it is a case of contempt/breach of 29.10.2025 order of this Court.
Contempt petitioner went on to submit that even on a demurer, even if the
Page 4 of 6
resolutions are seen as a roll back, there is a clear resolution about further
proceedings to take forward the complaint dated 22.07.2025 whereas all further
proceedings inter alia further proceedings pursuant to complaint dated 22.07.2025
(epicenter) have been stayed by this Court.
[6] It was also pointed out that the 29.10.2025 order had thereafter been
extended until further orders as both respondents in the WP had entered
appearance through counsel and complainant (R2) has sought time to file affidavit
in opposition. Though the contempt petition says that the order has been made
absolute, contempt petitioner fairly submits that the interim order has not been
made absolute but has been extended until further orders.
[7] Mr. W. Sanatomba, learned counsel who has filed Vakalatnama for
Bar Council of Manipur (respondent No. 1 in the WP) is before this Court as WP and
MC thereat are also listed today. This Court gave the option to learned counsel Mr.
W. Sanatomba to accept notice in this contempt petition also and file a suitable
affidavit in the contempt petition but learned counsel submitted that he does not
have instructions from the respondents to accept notice and to be noted this is in
spite of multiple earlier listings where such option was given to learned counsel.
This Court also examined the possibility of mediation in the main WP and the MC
thereat but Section 6 of the Mediation Act, 2023 (32 of 2023) and serial No. 4 of the
First Schedule thereat appears to come in the way as the case at hand may well fall
under the category of disputes/matters not fit for mediation as it is a case of
complaint before a statutory authority pertaining to practitioner/registered
professional. To be noted, this Court is acutely conscious that Mediation Act, 2023
is a conditional legislation, it consists of 65 Sections, it is dated 14.09.2023, it was
Page 5 of 6
published in the Official Gazette on 15.09.2023 but only 21 out of the 65 Sections
(excluding Section 6) kicked in (came into force) on 09.10.2023 vide Notification
being S.O. 4384(E). To put it differently, Section 6 and obviously the First Schedule
have not come into force but it has categorized complaints to a regulatory body
against a registered professional as a dispute/matter not fit for mediation.
[8] In the light of the narrative thus far, as 22.11.2025 resolution clearly
talks about deliberation qua 22.07.2025 complaint and authorizing the Secretary of
the Bar Council of Manipur to verify veracity of the documents submitted to the
complaint and collect relevant judicial orders prima facie view is 22.07.2025
complaint is being proceeded with, on the teeth of 29.10.2025 interim order which
is operating. As contempt petitioner has made out a prima facie case for issue of
notice, this Court has no option other than writing that prima facie case for issue of
notice to respondents has been made out and issue notice.
[9] Issue notice to respondents, returnable by 03.06.2026.
[10] Dasti notice is permitted.
[11] List on 03.06.2026.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Indrajeet
Page 6 of 6
