The order decides none of the representations on the merits — the Registrar General and Census Commissioner must still decide them — and it does not quash the census notifications; it continues them in abeyance. All rights and contentions of all parties are preserved.
- Case
- Kangleipak Students' Association v Union of India
- Court
- High Court of Manipur at Imphal
- Decision
- Citation
- 2026:MNHC:259-DB
- Bench
- M. Sundar, CJ; A. Guneshwar Sharma, J
- Judgment by
- M. Sundar, CJ
- Case numbers
- PIL No. 14 of 2026; WP(C) No. 623 of 2026
- Outcome
- PIL No. 14 of 2026 and WP(C) No. 623 of 2026 disposed of as closed by a consent order, with directions; MC(PIL) No. 16 of 2026 and MC(WP(C)) No. 649 of 2026 closed; MC(PIL) No. 18 of 2026 allowed as prayed. No order as to costs.
Census in Manipur stays on hold till 30 April 2027
A Division Bench of the High Court of Manipur has kept the Census 2027 exercise in the State in abeyance till 30 April 2027, disposing of a public interest litigation and a tagged writ petition by a consent order. The Court directed the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India to consider the representations made against the exercise on their own merits and to dispose of them by one common speaking order, in any event by 30 April 2027.
The order, a common judgment delivered orally by Chief Justice M. Sundar for a Bench also comprising Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma, closes the main PIL and the main writ petition with directions, closes two miscellaneous cases, and allows a third miscellaneous case as prayed. The Court recorded its appreciation for all counsel, the Advocate General and the Deputy Solicitor General of India for taking a fair and balanced approach without treating the matter like a regular adversarial drill.
Who brought the case, and what was before the Court
The PIL, PIL No. 14 of 2026, was filed by the Kangleipak Students' Association and the International Peace and Social Advancement against the Union of India, the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, the Director of Census Operations and Chief Principal Census Officer, Manipur, the State of Manipur and the Commissioner (Home). A writ petition, WP(C) No. 623 of 2026, filed by Shanta Singh Nahakpam, was tagged with it, along with three miscellaneous cases.
The common judgment states that it is to be read in conjunction with, and in continuation of, the proceedings and orders made when the matters were listed on 31 August 2026. On the day of the judgment, senior advocate Kh. Tarunkumar appeared for the PIL petitioners, H. Chandrakumar Singh appeared for the writ petitioner on video-conferencing, and the Deputy Solicitor General of India, the Advocate General for the State of Manipur and counsel for the respondents were present.
Seven representations, and a window for more
The order records that seven representations had been made raising concerns about the census exercise in the State, and reproduces them in the judgment. It directs that those seven representations be considered on their own merits, in accordance with law, and disposed of by a speaking order to be made by the Registrar General and Census Commissioner.
The order also leaves the door open for further representations: any other individual or entity may send a representation to the Registrar General and Census Commissioner within three weeks from the date of the order, that is, on or before 25 November 2026, and the PIL and writ petitioners may send additional representations within the same period. Any such further or additional representation must also be considered on its merits and disposed of by the same common speaking order. Representations sent after 25 November 2026 fall outside the remit of the order. In the course of considering the representations, the Registrar General and Census Commissioner may hold public consultations if considered necessary, and if not, the reasons must be set out in the common speaking order.
Three notifications continue, and the census stays on hold
The order directs that three notifications keeping the census exercise in abeyance continue to operate till 30 April 2027, with no rollback or modification: two notifications made by the Registrar General and Census Commissioner and published in the Gazette of India, S.O. 4917(E) dated 5 September 2026 and S.O. 5913(E) dated 30 October 2026, and a notification dated 22 March 2026 published in the Manipur Gazette. The Court states the effect in plain terms: the census exercise for the State of Manipur will continue to be put on hold and kept in abeyance till 30 April 2027.
The same date is the outer limit for the decision itself. The exercise of considering the seven and any additional representations and making the speaking order must be concluded as expeditiously as the official business of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner and the other concerned entities permits, but in any event on or before 30 April 2027.
What happens after the speaking order
Once the common speaking order is made, it must be served on the counsel on record for the PIL petitioners and the writ petitioner as expeditiously as the official business of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner permits, and in any event within five working days of the disposal of the representations. The order is also to be hosted on the official websites of the Government of Manipur and the Registrar General and Census Commissioner.
After the speaking order is made, the census process in Manipur is to continue to be kept in abeyance for a further period of four weeks, to enable the PIL petitioners, the writ petitioner, or any other person concerned to approach the Court if aggrieved or not satisfied with the order. If that challenge is brought, the Court has made clear that it will consider the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law, untrammelled by the present proceedings, and that all the rights and contentions of all the parties are left open and preserved. The main PIL and the main writ petition stand disposed of as closed in the manner directed, MC(PIL) No. 16 of 2026 and MC(WP(C)) No. 649 of 2026 are disposed of as closed, and MC(PIL) No. 18 of 2026 is allowed as prayed. There is no order as to costs.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
This is a consent order, not a judgment on the merits. The Court did not decide whether the concerns raised in the representations are well-founded; it routed them to the authority that must decide them, the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, and fixed the procedure and the deadline for that decision. That is why the order repeatedly preserves all rights and contentions: nothing decided now binds the later challenge.
Two features are worth noting. First, the Court kept the existing abeyance notifications alive instead of quashing them or ordering the census to proceed, which holds the position steady while the representations are decided. Second, the four-week window after the speaking order is a practical device: it gives anyone aggrieved by the decision time to return to the Court before the census machinery restarts, rather than leaving them to chase a moving exercise.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- What did the Court direct the Registrar General and Census Commissioner to do, and by when?
- Why did the Court keep the census exercise in abeyance rather than deciding the representations itself?
- What happens if a person is aggrieved by the common speaking order once it is passed?
