[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Manipur High Court
Shri. Kh. William Maring vs The State Of Manipur Through The ... on 8 December, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Non-reportable
Item No. 67
IN THE COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 449 of 2024
Shri. Kh. William Maring, aged about 38 years, S/o Kh. Metrim Maring, resident
of Lamlong Christian Village, P.O. Pallel, & PS.Tengnoupal Manipur at present
residing at JNIMS Quarter Type III, South Block B-VI, P.O. & P.S. Porompat,
District Imphal East, Manipur - 795005.
.....Petitioner
-versus-
1.The State of Manipur through the Commissioner (Home) Government of
Manipur, Imphal, Manipur.
2. The Manipur/State Information Commission through the Deputy Registrar
(Judl--l/ll), Govt. of Manipur, Secretariat North Block, Ground Floor, Behind
Western Block, Imphal, Manipur- 795001.
3. The Director General of Police (DGP), Govt. of Manipur, Imphal, Manipur -
795001.
4. The Superintendent of Police, DGP, Control Room-cum-ASPIO, Police
Department, Manipur - 795001.
..... Respondents
WP(C) NO. 449 OF 2024 1
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the Petitioners : Mr. Th. Khagemba, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. S. Niranjan, Govt. Advocate
None appeared for the State Information Commission
Date of Hearing : 08-12-2025
Date of Order : 08-12-2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER [Oral]
[1] This writ petition is filed for the issuance of appropriate order or direction
by setting aside the order dated 03.06.2024 passed by the State Chief
Information Commissioner, Manipur in Appeal Case No. 27 of 2024 and direct
the respondents to provide the information as per the RTI application filed by
the petitioner. By the impugned order, Chief Information Commissioner, Manipur
dismissed the second appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that the Home
Department is in exempted list and the petitioner has not been able to show any
element of corruption or violation of human right. By the RTI application, the
petitioner requested for supply of copies of his initial appointment order, transfer
order, proceedings of the departmental enquiry against him and his termination
order.
[2] The short question involved in the present writ petition is whether non-
sensitive and non-confidential information be disclosed under the right to
WP(C) NO. 449 OF 2024 2
Information Act, 2005 by a government department (i.e., Manipur Police)
exempted under Section 24(4) of the Act.
Brief facts of the case :
[3] The petitioner is an Ex-Rifleman (RINO. 1299029) and he preferred an
application on 30/03/2023 under the Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005 to the State
Public Information Officer, Department of Home, Govt. of Manipur seeking the
following information of :- (1) Initial appointment order of the undersigned
applicant, 2) Transfer and posting orders of the undersigned applicant since the
initial date of appointment, (3) Suspension order, Dismissal order of the
undersigned applicant and (4) All the documents of the departmental enquiry
proceedings with regard to the dismissal from service of the petitioner.
[4] The Joint Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur by its letter dated
04/04/2023 addressed to the Director General of Police, Manipur requested to
give the required information sought by the petitioner. Since the said
information sought for by the petitioner were not provided, he preferred 1st
Appeal on 05.10.2023 under Section 19 (1) of the said Act to the appellate
authority i.e. the Commissioner, (Home), Govt. of Manipur, Imphal, Manipur.
The petitioner waited for the outcome of the said 1st Appeal, but with no positive
result. The petitioner, having no alternative, preferred 2nd Appeal before the
State Information Commissioner, Govt. of Manipur.
[5] On 25/04/2024 Commissioner (Home), Govt. of Manipur disposed of the
1st Appeal by stating that the information sought for is not in the custody of the
Home Department and the RTI application was referred to the ASPIO of Police
Department.
WP(C) NO. 449 OF 2024 3
[6] On 13/05/2024, the second appeal, i.e., Appeal Case No. 27 of 2024 was
listed before the Manipur Information Commission and on 03/06/2024 the
SPIO/SP DGCR submitted that the information could not be provided since the
notification dated 28/05/2011 provided that Manipur Police Department is an
exempted organization under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 except the information pertaining to allegation of
corruption and human rights violations and the said 2nd Appeal was rejected on
the same day, i.e., 03/06/2024 by observing that the information sought does
not fall under the allegation of corruption and violation of human rights.
[7] Hence the present petition praying to -
i) call for the records of the case and issue rule nisi calling upon the
respondents to show cause as to why the prayer prayed for by the
petitioner shall not be granted. And, after hearing them make the rule
absolute.
ii) Issue writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ/direction by
setting aside/quashing the order dated 03.06.2024.(Annexure-A/7).
iii) writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/direction thereby
directing the respondents to provide the information sought for by the
petitioner (Annexure-A/1) within a stipulated period.
iv) pass any other appropriate writ/order/direction that this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper.
[8] Heard the submission of Mr. Th. Khagemba, learned counsel of the
petitioner and Mr. S. Niranjan learned counsel for the state respondent. None
appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2 i.e. Manipur Information
Commission in spite of proper service of summon.
WP(C) NO. 449 OF 2024 4
[9] The State Respondents have not filed counter affidavit and hence the
matter is heard on available record.
[10] It may be noted that vide Notification dated 15/10/2005 issued by the
Special Secretary (DP&AR), Govt. of Manipur under sub-section 4 of Section 24
of the Right to Information Act, 2005, Manipur Police Department has been
exempted from the purview of RTI Act except for 'information sought for
pertaining to allegations of corruption and human right violation'. This
notification is subsequently modified by orders dated 25/10/2005 and
28/05/2011.
[11] For easy reference, the impugned decision of the Manipur Information
Commission dated 03.06.2024 is reproduced below :
"No A/27/MIC- 2024
MANIPUR INFORMATION COMMISSION
SECRETRIAT NORTH BLOCK, GROUND FL00R,
BEHIND WESTERN BLOCK.
IMPHAL, MANIPUR.
Phone No: 0385-2456495
--------------
Kh. Wiliam Maring -Appellant.
-Vs-
The SPIO/ Special Secretary (Home) Govt. of Manipur & Anr. -
Respondents.
DECISION
Dated: - 3.6.2024
The SPIO Special Secretary (Home) Govt. of Manipur is absent. Ms Reena Haobam, SPIO/
SP. DGCR is
Present. The Appellant is represented Mr. David, Advocate.
Brief Facts of the Case: -
One Mr. Kh. William Maring filed an RTI application on 30.3.2023 to the SPIO/ Home, seeking
information on four points under Section 6 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is closely connected
with the personal documents of the Applicant/Appellant, viz. initial appointment order,
transfer and posting order, suspension and dismissal order and proceedings of the
Departmental inquiry.
On 4.4.2023 the Home Department had transferred the said RTI application to the Director
General of police.
Thereafter, the Applicant/Appellant filed first Appeal on 5.10.2023 to the FAA/ Commissioner
Home under Section 19 (1) of the RTI Act. Subsequently, the FAA has disposed the first
Appeal on 25.4.2024 with a direction that the said information and the relevant documents
are not in the custody of the home, and the same was referred to the SPIO/ Manipur Police
Department.
Lastly, the Appellant filed second Appeal to the Commission on 22.3.2024 to the Commission
under Section 19 (3) of the RTI Act. Hence, the present Appeal case.
Summary of the Hearings: -
On the day of hearing on 30.4.2024 the Commission impleaded the SPIO/ DGCR as the
deemed SPIO in the next hearing.
On the day of hearing dated, 13.5.2024 the representative of the Special Secretary (Home)
submitted that the pertinent information is not in the custody of the Home Department.
On the last of hearing dated 3.6.2024 the SPIO/ SP, DGCR submitted that as per the
notification dated28.5.2011 issued by the Addl. Secretary (AR), Government of Manipur, the
Manipur Police Department Comprising of civil police is an exempted organization under sub-
section (4) of Section 24 of the Right to Information Act. 2005. She claimed that only the
information pertaining to allegation of corruption and human right violations shall be
provided with the approval of the Information Commission, she further added that the
information sought by the Appellant does not falls under the said categories. As such, she
had declined to furnish the said information.
The Ld. Counsel of the Appellant submitted that the information sought by the Appellant is
not related with any sensitive matters of the Police Department and as such he prayed the
Commission to direct the Public Authority to furnish the said information.
Observation: -
After hearing from both the parties, the Commission observes that the Appellant could not
produce any verifiable proof that indicates allegation of corruption or Violation of human
rights. As Such, the Commission has not acceded to the request of the Appellant. The Appeal
case is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(K. Radhashyam Singh)
State Chief Information Commissioner,
Manipur Information Commission."
[12] Mr. Th. Khagemba, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
present case is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Shri
Phairemba Sudesh Singh vs State of Manipur (2016) AIR (Manipur) 19
and submitted that the Home Department is not altogether exempted and
documents pertaining to orders for appointment, transfer and termination etc.,
which are not sensitive or confidential, can be supplied.
Phairembam Sudesh Singh vs. The State of Manipur and Ors.
MANU/MN/0008/2016: AIR 2016 Manipur 19:
6. Shri Th. Khagemba, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
heavily relied upon the judgment and order dated 13-10-2015 passed by
this court in W.P. (C) No. 880 of 2014 wherein this court had examined
the question as to whether the petitioner therein was entitled to
information sought for by him when the Police Department, Government
of Manipur had been exempted and no allegation pertaining to corruption
and violence of human rights had been made by him. Similar issue has
arisen in the present case and the only difference is that in the said case,
the information sought for was with regard to the recruitment process of
Sub-Inspector of Police whereas in the present case, the information
sought for by the petitioner are as regards his service namely the initial
appointment, suspension order, documents relating to departmental
proceedings, termination order etc. On perusal of the said judgment and
order, this court is of the view that the issue involved herein is covered
by it and in that case, this court held that the information sought for by
the petitioner therein which pertained to allegations of corruption, would
be covered by the expression "information pertaining to allegations of
corruption". It has further been held that if any information has the
potential to raise a serious question of the existence of corruption or
violation of human rights, it can be certainly considered to be "pertaining
to allegations of corruption and human rights violation". The para 12
thereof is as under:
"12. This issue can be viewed from another perspective. The
legislature in their anxiety to keep certain organisations which are
engaged in activities involving sensitive information, secrecy of the
State, have sought to keep these organisations away from the
purview of the Act by including such organisations in the Second
Schedule of the Act as far as Central Organisations are concerned
and in the official gazette in respect of State organisations. It does
not, however, mean that all information relating to these
organisations are completely out of bound of the public. For
example, even though the Central Bureau of Investigations is one
of the organisations included in the Second Schedule to the Act, it
does not mean that all information relating to it are out of bound
of the public. If one looks at the website of the Central Bureau of
Investigation which is in the public domain, there are so many
information about the organisation which are already voluntarily
made open to the public. This is for the simple reason that
disclosure of these information does not in any way compromise
with the integrity of the organisation or confidentiality of the
sensitive nature of works undertaken by this organisation. The
purpose of excluding all these organisations from the purview of
the Act as provided under Section 24 is to merely protect and
ensure the confidentiality of the sensitive works and activities
undertaken by these organisations. Therefore, if there are any
information which do not impinge upon the confidentiality of the
sensitive activities of the organisation and if such information is also
relatable to the issues of corruption or violation of human rights,
disclosure of such information cannot be withheld. Similarly, in
respect of the police organisations in the State of Manipur if
anybody seeks any information which does not touch upon any of
the sensitive and confidential activities undertaken by the police
department and if the said information also can be related to the
issues of any allegation of corruption or violation of human rights,
such information cannot be withheld. We may further clarify this
position by borrowing the concept of doctrine of "pith and
substance". The doctrine of "pith and substance" was evolved by
the courts primarily to determine whether a particular law relates
to a subject mentioned in one list or the other and while doing so,
the Court looks into the substance of the enactment. Thus, if the
substance of the enactment falls within the Union List then the
incidental and encroachment by the enactment on the State list
would not make it invalid. Thus, the essence of this doctrine centred
round the substantive part of the enactment or the core subject of
the enactment. Though this doctrine cannot be invoked to decide
the issue raised in this petition, the principle behind it may be
referred to while deciding the issue at hand. By doing so, this Court
will hold that if any information relates to the core activity of the
organisation because of which such an organisation has been
excluded from the purview of the Act, any such information can be
withheld except which relates to allegation of corruption and
violation of human rights. Therefore, if there be any information
which does not relate to the principal or the core function of the
organisation which is sought to be protected by including in Section
24 of the Act, but if it can have some reference or relatable to
corruption or violation of human rights, such an information cannot
be withheld. It may be observed that the core function of the police
organisation is to maintain law and order, security of the State and
discharge such activities which are related to and ancillary to these
functions. It that context, undertaking the exercise of a recruitment
process is not part of the core function of the police department. It
is some function which could be outsourced to any other agency
like the Public Service Commission etc. and this activity does not
form part of the core function of the Police Department which
cannot be outsourced to any other agency. Of course, recruitment
of intelligence officials may form part of the core function. But in
the present case, such is not the case. The recruitment in issue is
the general recruitment process of the personnel of the police
department generally."
While passing the said judgment and order, this court has agreed to and
subscribed to the views of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court
rendered in its order dated 28-04-2011 in LPA No. 744 of 2011 and LPA
No. 745 of 2011 wherein it has examined the scope of the expression
"information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights
violence" as regards the issue whether any information, in respect of
encroachment of the public post or of filling up the public post, can be
said to be "information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human
rights violence". The said Hon'ble High Court has observed that this
expression is not defined in the Act and that the public officers are to be
attentive, fair and impartial in the performance of their functions and at
no time should afford any undue preferential treatment to any group or
individual or improperly discriminate against any group or individual, or
otherwise abuse the power and authority vested in them and information
which relates to the working of a public office and whether such office
acted in accordance with laws would be relevant so as to exclude the
allegation of corruption. The said Hon'ble High Court has further held that
the information sought for which is in respect of the number of vacancies
which have fallen to the share of the specified category and whether such
posts have been filled up from amongst the eligible candidates, if
disclosed, will lead to transparent administration which is antithesis of
corruption and help in dispelling favoritism, nepotism or arbitrariness.
Accordingly, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court are directed for
furnishing of such information.
7. This court proposes to add further observations to its earlier judgment
and order referred to above. There can be no any dispute that the RTI
Act, 2005 is enacted with the avowed objective of conferring a statutory
right on the citizens in India to have access to Government-controlled
information or to seek information from Central Government/State
Governments, local bodies and other competent authorities as a matter
of right. The idea is that it would prove to be instrumental in bringing in
transparency and accountability in Government and Public Institutions
which would help in bringing the growth of corruption in check. The scope
of the Act is wide enough to cover all the Constitutional Institutions and
subject to exemptions, universally applies to all Public Authorities. Section
3 gives statutory recognition to the right to information subject to the
other provisions of the Act. Section 8 sets out limitations on the right of
access as exemptions from disclosure of information. Similarly, Section
24(4) confers power on the State Government to exempt any intelligence
and security organisation established by it from the purview of the
provisions. It may be noted that the right to information is a facet of
"freedom of speech and expression", as contained in Article 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution, which are the foundation of all democratic organisations.
Fundamental rights should not be cut down by too restricted an approach.
Even prior to the enactment of RTI Act, 2005, the expression "freedom of
speech and expression" has been construed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in a catena of decisions, to include not only liberty to propagate
one's views, ideas, opinions and thoughts but also the right to acquire
information. In other words, the right to information can be said to be a
fundamental right subject to the exemptions as contained in Section 8
and 24 of the RTI Act. As has been held by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana
High Court, the expression "information pertaining to allegations of
corruption and human rights violence" is not defined in the Act but it has
a wide connotation in view of the objective sought to be achieved in the
Act. The relevance of transparency and accountability in the
administration has arisen because of the corruption being rampant and
power allegedly being misused by the Public Authorities in the country.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 provides
that everyone has the right to freedom of pinion and expression; this right
includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers. To comprehend the intent of the Legislature while
enacting the RTI Act specially as regards the said expression, the
provisions of the Act, as a whole, are to be read keeping in mind the
purpose for which the RTI Act is enacted and it may further be noted that
the exemptions cannot be construed so as to defeat the very objective
sought to be achieved in the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, it has been rightly
held by this court in the said case of Md. Abid Hussain v. State of Manipur,
W.P. (C) No. 880 of 2014 that any information which does not touch upon
any of the sensitive and confidential activities undertaken by the Police
Department, Government of Manipur cannot be withheld at all. In other
words, access to such information cannot be denied to the citizens. It can
be seen from the facts of the present case that the information sought for
by the petitioner have nothing to do with the sensitive and confidential
activities undertaken by the Police Department, Government of Manipur
and therefore, the same cannot be denied to him.
[13] From the above judgment, it is clear that even if Home Department
is exempted from the purview of RTI Act in view of the Notification dated
15.10.2005 and subsequent orders issued under Section 24(4) of the Act, all
aspects of Home Department are not immune from RTI Act. It has been held
that non-sensitive and non-confidential information can be entertained under
RTI Act even for an exempted department. In the present case, the information
sought for by the petitioner are his personal information regarding appointment,
transfer, disciplinary proceeding, termination etc. and the information are
neither sensitive nor confidential. In normal office engagement, an employee is
entitled to get copies of his initial appointment, transfer order, suspension and
dismissal orders. Following the above decision, the instant petition is allowed
and the decision of the Manipur Information Commission in Appeal Case No. 27
of 2024 is quashed and set aside with the direction that the Respondent No.3
[DGP] to furnish the information sought by the petitioner within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and order. If the
information is not available to the respondent no. 3, the concerned authority
who has the information may be directed to furnish the same. No cost.
[14] Send a copy of this order to the Director General of Police, Manipur for
information and doing needful.
JUDGE
Suchitra
KH. Digitally signed
by KH. JOSHUA
JOSHUA MARING
Date: 2025.12.10
MARING 16:31:51 +05'30'
