K. Lamneithang Vaiphei vs Union Of India & Ors.

M. Sundar, CJ

[1] The following abbreviations/short forms/short references are used in this order (for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity):

Sl. No.

Abbreviation/Short

Form/reference for

convenience

Full Form/Expansion

1.

PiL

Public Interest Litigation

2.

IDP

Internally Displaced Person

3.

IDPs

Internally Displaced Persons

4.

JIDP

Joint Internally Displaced Person.

5.

RTI Act

The Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005)

6.

RTI

Right to Information

7.

Oms

Office Memoranda

8.

OM

Office Memorandum

9.

R1

Denotes Respondent No.1 and similar abbreviations and short forms are used for the other respondents also.

[2] Captioned PiL has been presented in this Court yesterday (10.06.2026).

[3] PiL petitioner who is a teacher (Principal of a School) with a post Graduate degree and a Doctorate is concerned for IDPs in Manipur who are not living in camps. The protagonist of the captioned PiL has chosen to describe the IDPs who are not living in camp as 'non- camped IDPs' in contra distinction to IDPs who are living in camps who have been described by PiL petitioner as 'camped IDPs'.

[4] In the hearing today, Mr. Serto T Kom, learned counsel along with Ms. Deborah L.S. Serto, learned counsel on record for PiL petitioner is before this Court (physical Court).

[5] Learned counsel for PiL petitioner draws the attention of this Court to an 'OM dated 24.10.2025 bearing reference No. H- 1701/114/2023-HD-HD'('said OM' for the sake of convenience) issued by R2 and submits that there is an earlier OM dated 09.06.2023 bearing reference No.H-1701/114/2023-HD-HD. Learned counsel submits that under the earlier OM, guidelines were issued inter-alia for providing relief materials such as rice, dal, water and other essential items in kind to IDPs in relief camps. Now under the said OM, there is a modification and vide the modification the exercise of providing relief materials have been stopped w.e.f. 31.10.2025, on from 01.11.2025, a Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) to the bank accounts of the head of the family of IDPs at the rate of Rs. 84 per person per day is being made is learned counsel's say. Learned counsel further submits that the non-camped IDPs have not received benefits under both OMs. Learned counsel submits that another public spirited individual concerned for the non- camped IDPs made a RTI query and obtained details of number of IDP households not residing in relief camp (non-camped IDPs), gender wise breakup, details of fund sanction by Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), camp wise/localities wise break up of fund allocation and details of ration and relief distribution. This is in the form of a annexure to a communication dated 11.03.2026 from R4 and a scanned reproduction of this communication and annexure are as follows:

[6] Learned counsel for PiL petitioner, Mr. Serto T Kom further submitted that 2(two) representations have been sent by JIDP, one dated 25.02.2026 and another dated 05.03.2026. Copies of these representations have been marked inter-alia to R1 and R4. Learned counsel also submits that both representations are ad verbatim the same and therefore, we deem it appropriate to extract and reproduce (scanned reproduction) of one of the representations i.e., representation dated 25.02.2026, we do so and the same is as follows:

[7] Learned counsel for PiL petitioner submits that protagonist of the captioned PiL who is concerned for non-camped IDPs is aware that JIDP is awaiting a response to the afore-referred 2(two) representations and that has necessitated the filing of the captioned PiL.

[8] Issue notice.

[9] Mr. Boboy Potsangbam, learned Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) who is before this Court on Video Conferencing (VC) platform and Mr. Satish Kh., learned counsel who is in the physical Court and who is assisting learned CGSC accepts notice for R1. Mr. Dimal Kumar Haobam, learned State counsel who is present in Court (physical Court) accepts notice for R2 to R4 and Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned senior advocate and learned Advocate General (AG) for the State of Manipur who is before this Court on the Video Conferencing (VC) platform is appearing on behalf of learned State counsel Mr. Dimal Kumar Haobam.

[10] Learned AG for State of Manipur very fairly submitted that as regards IDPs, the approach of the State is pan Manipur and complete parity is the principle on which the issue pertaining to IDPs pan Manipur is being approached.

[11] In the light of the narrative thus far, this Court deems it pertinent to make it clear that the captioned PiL is not adversarial and that the PiL petitioner is an informant/public spirited individual, deems it appropriate to direct R4 to consider the aforesaid representation dated 25.02.2026, and send a response to PiL petitioner (though representation has been sent by JIDP) broadly setting out the measures taken/done thus far qua non-camped IDPs and also take further steps, if necessary. To be noted, the afore-referred representations have been signed by 9(nine) individuals and as already alluded to supra, it has been sent by JIDP and PiL petitioner is not one of the signatories to the representations.

[12] Learned counsel for PiL petitioner submits that JIDP is an unincorporated AoP (to be noted, 'AoP' stands for 'Association of Persons'). Learned counsel also submits that the response to be sent by R4 qua the afore-referred representation to the PiL petitioner will be treated as response sent to all the 9(nine) signatories and JIDP. This submission is recorded.

[13] This Court deems it appropriate to write that besides R4 responding to the aforesaid representation in the aforesaid manner, R2 and other authorities concerned shall consider the matter on a pan Manipur perspective qua all IDPs as fairly pointed out by learned AG.

[14] This Court directs R4 to dispose of the aforesaid representation dated 25.02.2026 in the aforesaid manner keeping in mind the 2(two) OMs but on the merits of the representation (on its own merits) and in accordance with law as expeditiously as the official business of R4 would permit but in any event within 10(ten) weeks from today i.e., on or before 07.09.2026, the detailed response to the representation from R4 shall be communicated to PiL petitioner under due acknowledgement within 10(ten) working days from date of response.

[15] Before concluding, this Court deems it appropriate to make it clear that post response in the aforesaid manner if the PiL petitioner or any other person/s concerned for the matter has any further issue to be ventilated, it is open to such person/s to come to this Court on this issue, more particularly pertaining non-camped IDPs.

[16] In the light of the order we have made, there is no direct role for R1 at present. However, with regard to fund allocations if any input is required from R1 and if it is sought by R4, then needful shall be done.

[17] Captioned PiL is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs.