While the High Court’s order provides immediate administrative relief, the real test lies in whether the State Government will honour the six-month deadline to hold elections. Political instability, logistical constraints, or policy disagreements could pose roadblocks.
Editorial
In a significant administrative move, the Government of Manipur on June 10 appointed Deputy Commissioners (DCs) of six hill districts as interim Administrators of their respective Autonomous District Councils (ADCs). The decision, announced through an official order dated 10 June 2025 and issued by the Governor of Manipur, follows a directive from the Hon’ble High Court of Manipur in connection with Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 19 of 2024.
The sequence of actions—from the High Court’s carefully worded judgment to the Governor’s appointment order—is seem as a mark of critical phase in restoring democratic functionality to Manipur’s Autonomous District Councils. As the six-month countdown begins, stakeholders across the hills and valleys will closely watch whether the Government follows through on its constitutional and moral commitment to conduct elections, thereby reaffirming the autonomy and voice of Manipur’s hill communities. Was it a judicial nudge to democratic restoration or something else?
The districts and corresponding ADCs where the DCs will now serve as interim Administrators include: Churachandpur – Churachandpur ADC; Senapati – Manipur North (Senapati) ADC; Tamenglong – Tamenglong ADC; Chandel – Chandel ADC; Ukhrul – Ukhrul ADC and Kangpokpi – Sadar Hills ADC.
The order, issued by Anurag Bajpai, Additional Chief Secretary (Tribal Affairs & Hills), states that these appointments will remain effective “till further orders”, marking a stopgap administrative measure while paving the way for eventual ADC elections.
The order comes in the wake of a ruling by the High Court of Manipur in a case filed by Ningtinglung Kamei, a resident of Nungba village, Noney district. Kamei’s petition had sought the timely conduct of ADC elections and raised concerns over the delay in reconstituting the councils, which serve as vital grassroots institutions of governance in Manipur’s hill areas.
In its judgment, the Court dealt with the broader constitutional and administrative issues around the representation of hill communities and the autonomy of ADCs under the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971. The key points of the judgment included: First. Resolution by the Hill Areas Committee (HAC) as the Court recognized a resolution passed by the HAC as a valid “representation” to the State Government for the appointment of an Administrator or officer to manage ADCs until proper elections are held. Second, it exhibited the State Government’s Discretion. The Court emphasized that it is within the State Government’s jurisdiction to consider the HAC’s representation and to issue appropriate administrative orders in line with existing laws. Third, the judgement covers redressal mechanism as the Court clarified that if any stakeholder has objections to these appointments or decisions, they are free to present their grievances to the respondents (State and administrative authorities).
Importantly, the High Court laid down a dual timeline. This includes appointment of interim administrators and conduct of ADC elections. The Court directed the State Government (referred to as the second respondent in the case) to take appropriate steps to appoint Administrators within six weeks of receiving the Court order (dated 12 March 2025). The current 10 June appointment order indicates compliance with this directive.
The Court also acknowledged the petitioner’s plea for timely elections. It directed the Government to consider and act on the request for ADC elections within six months from the date of receipt of the order. This places the tentative deadline around mid-September 2025.
In the meantime, the Court ordered a status quo, meaning no major administrative changes should occur beyond the scope of its instructions until elections are held or new directives are issued.
This development carries multiple implications for the governance and political landscape of Manipur’s hill regions. Restoration of local governance seems to be the first priority.
The ADCs have remained defunct in several districts for extended periods due to delayed elections. The appointment of DCs as interim Administrators ensures a modicum of institutional continuity, although critics may point out that it blurs the line between state bureaucracy and tribal self-governance. The priority seems to be a legal and political game-plan. The Court’s directive seemingly balances judicial perspective with the executive’s discretion, ensuring that the delay in elections is not open-ended. At the same time, it reaffirms the relevance of the Hill Areas Committee in safeguarding the interests of the hill tribes.
While the order provides immediate administrative relief, the real test lies in whether the State Government will honour the six-month deadline to hold elections. Political instability, logistical constraints, or policy disagreements could pose roadblocks. The petitioner Ningtinglung Kamei’s intervention through legal means highlights the increasing civic engagement from underrepresented areas like Nungba, showing how individuals are resorting to constitutional mechanisms to demand democratic governance.